Reading cases from home does not impact radiology residents’ productivity
Reading cases from home did not impact radiology residents’ productivity during the pandemic, according to new research published Monday in JACR.
COVID-19 has forced many to pivot away from traditional work models, sending physicians home to perform their duties where possible. Radiology residents have typically not been allowed to read remotely because of the need for in-person teaching; the University of Pennsylvania, however, has shifted its mindset to help meet quarantine guidelines and provide flexibility.
Analyzing the success of the program thus far, researchers believe tele-residency warrants continued consideration beyond the public health crisis.
“While remote work cannot replace on-site education for residents, home resident workstations can provide additional versatility during the pandemic,” Colbey Freeman, MD, chief neuroradiology fellow at the Philadelphia-based institution, and colleagues wrote Jan. 24. “In a future, post-pandemic world, resident home workstations may have other benefits, such as providing greater work flexibility in circumstances that would otherwise prevent residents from working in the reading room, allowing residents to provide backup to their on-call resident colleagues in the event of high volumes, and facilitating more secure remote access to educational and research resources from home.”
Penn Medicine allowed its first- and third-year radiology residents to use academic funds to purchase their workstations, which included PACS integration, EHR access and dictation software. Imaging leaders assigned residents to read from home across multiple divisions between November 2020 and April 2021. Freeman et al. retrospectively analyzed trends from that period, comparing residents on-site work against at-home performance.
Out of 51 eligible residents, 24 had functional at-home workstations and were included in the study. Of those, 11 were assigned to read remotely at least once during the study period, for a total of 43 days (38 on CT or MR rotations, four on radiography and one on ultrasound). Meanwhile, residents were on-site for 95 days during the study period.
The analysis uncovered no statistically significant difference between the volume of studies read at home compared to in person. Residents actually read a much higher volume of CT and MRI exams remotely, the authors noted. They also read a higher volume of X-rays at home, but the difference was deemed statistically insignificant.
While participating trainees were just as productive away from the office, the authors expressed concern about this new model replacing tradition.
“Remote readouts may not provide the same education quality as in-person readouts, particularly in the presence of technical challenges,” the authors wrote, adding that residents also cannot perform procedures. “Furthermore, the phone calls answered by residents on-site can provide important educational opportunities, although not all phone calls carry educational value
Marty Stempniak has covered healthcare since 2012, with his byline appearing in the American Hospital Association's member magazine, Modern Healthcare and McKnight's. Prior to that, he wrote about village government and local business for his hometown newspaper in Oak Park, Illinois. He won a Peter Lisagor and Gold EXCEL awards in 2017 for his coverage of the opioid epidemic.