Q&A: Ezequiel Silva on ACR 2016 and why rads should listen to feedback from nonradiologists

ACR 2016, the annual meeting of the American College of Radiology, begins May 15 in Washington, D.C. In the weeks leading up to ACR 2016, RadiologyBusiness.com is previewing the conference by putting a spotlight on various sessions.

This week, we examine “What We Can Learn From Our Customers: Perspectives From Three Non-Radiologists (and One Radiologist),” a session organized by Ezequiel Silva, MD. Silva is the vice chairman of the ACR Commission on Economics, ACR advisor to the Relative Value Scale Update Committee, and a practicing radiologist.

In the session, Silva will discuss the current state of radiology with three nonradiologists: Peter Angood, MD, Steven Weinberger, MD, and Alan J. Balch, PhD. Each guest will share their own thoughts, and then Silva and audience members will have the opportunity to reply.

Silva spoke with RadiologyBusiness.com about the session, how it came to be, and how increased communication can lead to improved patient care.

RadiologyBusiness.com: Why is it important for radiologists to hear the perspective of nonradiologists?

Ezequiel Silva, MD: The message we hear within radiology is our need to become more visible to patients, referring physicians, and CEOs and administrators. And I say that in contrast to the traditional radiology model, which is being in the dark reading room, interpreting x-rays, and providing important services with those interpretations, but maybe not providing the level of value that is possible with the profession.

Imaging 3.0 is the model you’ll hear radiologists discuss. It provides tools, experiences, and almost a playbook for how to make that become a part of your practice should your practice choose to do so. And a lot of the guidance is based on experiences shared with radiologists by others, but the message is still coming internally, from within radiology.

When we formulated this particular lecture—this was a year ago or so when we were discussing what the topic might be—I said: If we really want to talk about value and talk about what radiologists can bring to the table and to the forefront of healthcare, what do you think is the best way to know what those we serve really want? We need to ask them. We need to ask the customers of our services, which I don’t mean from a business perspective, but I mean they are the consumers of what we deliver.

So I said, it’s going to be patients, it’s going to be referring physicians, and it’s going to be hospital executives.

We decided to find individuals who were leaders in those individuals spaces, leaders who are going to be candid. We may be surprised by what they say, we may not like what they say, but we need to learn from what they say.

Is that a two-way conversation? When talking with nonradiologists, do you then share your own perspective with them?

I think it’s a bi-directional communication. We can hear from them what they expect from us or what they would like to see from us, but there is a very real possibility that the response to that is, “that’s an interesting point, did you know we already provide this?”

The description of your ACR 2016 session says you will be listening to the viewpoints of these three nonradiologists for the first time. So does that means there is no prior discussion about the specifics of their comments?

I don’t necessarily mean they are going to say something I’ve never heard anywhere before, but I have been fairly purposeful with the speakers and said, “consider what you want, what we could do better, but don’t tell me what the answer is yet.”

I want to hear it and the audience to hear it for the first time so we don’t react preemptively and so we are honest in that discussion. It gives us a chance to have more face-to-face communication as opposed to electronic communication. And I’ve left a lot of time in the presentation for those in the audience to come to the microphone and give their thoughts.

I’m really excited to see what comes out of it, and I hope that we, as a profession, leave there with some great ideas. And I hope those individuals who are speaking from other nonradiology specialties leave that room thinking to themselves, “wow, radiology really is engaged, they really are on board, and they really want to do better for our respective constituencies.”

In the last year or so, I’ve seen multiple journal entries written by radiologists who said more one-on-one time between radiologists and patients could have numerous benefits for both the radiologist and the patient. Do you have any thoughts on this?

As far as what patients require, having a favorable patient experience is something we all should seek to achieve. We’ve all been patients, many of us have had family members who have been patients, and as we all get older, that becomes more common. So I do think the profession needs to focus on what a patient goes through when they go through an imaging exam.

What is that patient’s experience in the outpatient setting when they walk into an imaging center? How can we make that experience more favorable? Then you take that to the hospital, to the ER setting, what can we do to enhance that patient experience? And one part of that is having the ability or the option to have more individual radiologist involvement.

But I will say, we need to be respectful to the referring physicians, because even though we are consultants by definition, we need to be up front with patients about that: “Mr. and Mrs. Jones, I want you to know that I’m providing this exam, but I want to be sensitive to the fact that you have a physician who is providing your primary care who knows you better than I do. And many of the questions you might ask me should be answered in the context of what your referring physician knows about you.” So it’s a balance.

But if patients don’t have that option, I don’t think that’s a dynamic that leads to success.

Can you briefly touch on the three nonradiologists you will be chatting with during your session? What made you ask them to participate?

They’re all leaders in their respective fields. All three are recognized leaders in this subject, so for us in the ACR to bring all three of those busy professionals into one room for their perspective, it has the potential to be a home run.

This text was edited for space and clarity. Other ACR 2016 is available here.