How letting radiologists work remotely can help save the planet

Letting radiologists work remotely can help save the planet, in addition to its myriad benefits boosting well-being while reducing burnout. 

That’s according to a new research letter, published Jan. 20 in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. Previous studies have detailed telework’s many positives for physicians, including increased productivity, autonomy and flexibility. Researchers with the University of Saskatchewan recently assessed the added environmental impact of reduced commute times when letting rads work from home. 

They found teleradiology can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, at roughly 63% when compared to if all impacted individuals needed to travel into work every day. The greatest change appeared to arise from decreased long-distance rural travel, researchers reported. 

“This highlights remote radiology as a practical and immediately implementable strategy to reduce the environmental footprint of medical imaging, while maintaining care regardless of patient location,” lead author Memoon Qureshi and colleagues reported.  

Saskatchewan researchers surveyed 24 of 26 radiologists working for their institution’s mixed urban and rural radiology practice, performing both academic and community work. Urban service covers a tertiary hospital and outpatient clinic in Saskatoon, a city of 315,000. Rural service, meanwhile, covers 2 hospitals with combined catchment areas of 280,000 and twice-weekly on-site presence required. Schedules for rads include mandatory in-person seats, mandatory remote reporting, and additional optional remote reporting. Qureshi and colleagues calculated radiologists’ regular commute times and travel savings seen due to remote work. 

Median commute times from home were approximately six miles to clinic, nine miles to the urban hospital and almost 176 miles to the rural site. About 83% of the radiologists surveyed commuted via a gas-powered vehicle, 17% used an electric car and 30% occasionally did so by bike. Eight rads reported mixed commute habits and none of them walked or used public transportation. If all work was mandated in-person, monthly radiologist travel would be nearly 10,570 miles, decreasing to 3,865, based on stated preferences for optional remote seats. If all optional seats were shifted to remote work, the tally would decrease another 9%, down to about 3,541 miles. 

Shifting from current preferences to fully remote work, where possible, would provide energy savings equivalent to about 538 MRI exams per month or 6,400 annually, the authors estimated. 

“Expanding remote work opportunities would further decrease commute-related emissions,” the authors speculated. “However, this needs to be balanced out with the benefits of an on-site radiologist for duties such as contrast reaction coverage, performing procedures, patient interaction and teaching, all of which prevent the full adoption of remote radiology work. The service of rural communities may have the greatest scope for implementation of remote work as providing rural radiology services through both remote and on-site radiologist work allows for better delivery of services with less geographic inequity.”

Read more about their findings, including potential study limitations, in CARJ here. 

Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the potential energy savings in terms of MRI studies. Radiology Business regrets the error.