Interventional radiology and Brazilian medical students: a survey of knowledge and interests in a public university

Objetivos: Avaliar o conhecimento de estudantes de medicina e o interesse em radiologia intervencionista como especialidade e analisar se existe interesse de que este assunto ou especialidade seja inserido no currículo acadêmico. Material e Métodos: Os participantes foram convidados a responder um questionário com diferentes questões relacionadas à radiologia intervencionista e que abordava questões referentes ao nível de conhecimento da especialidade, formação médica necessária, procedimentos realizados e a necessidade de inserção desta especialidade na grade curricular da formação acadêmica médica. Resultados: Cento e oitenta e sete acadêmicos responderam a pesquisa (57 (30,48%) do 1º ou 2º períodos, 110 (58,82%) 3º ou 4º e 20 (10,7%) 5º ou 6º anos). A maioria dos estudantes afirmou conhecer termos relacionados à radiologia intervencionista. Em relação a área de atuação da radiologia intervencionista, 109 (58,29%) sinalizaram o diagnóstico e tratamento. Oitenta e três participantes (44,39%) afirmaram que os procedimentos utilizam todos os métodos de imagem e 70 (37,43%) não souberam responder quais métodos a radiologia intervencionista utiliza. Menos de 50% dos participantes reconhece os procedimentos que podem ser realizados pela especialidade. A grande maioria (95,19%) dos estudantes concordaram que a inserção de mais informações sobre a área durante a graduação seria de grande valia na formação acadêmica. Conclusão: Acadêmicos de medicina têm pouco conhecimento sobre a radiologia intervencionista, no entanto são extremamente positivos em seu desejo de ter esse assunto inserido na grade curricular da faculdade de medicina.Objectives: To evaluate the knowledge of medical students and the interest in interventional radiology as a specialty and to analyze if there is interest that this subject or specialty be inserted in the academic curriculum. Materials and Methods: Participants were invited to respond a questionnaire with different questions related to interventional radiology, which addressed questions related to the level of knowledge of the specialty, medical training required, procedures performed and the need to insert this specialty in the curriculum of academic training. Results: One hundred and eighty-seven academics answered the survey (57 (30.48%) of the 1st or 2nd period, 110 (58.82%) 3rd or 4th and 20 (10.7%) 5th or 6th years). Most students said they knew terms related to interventional radiology. Regarding the intervention area of radiology, 109 (58.29%) signaled the diagnosis and treatment. Eighty-three participants (44.39%) stated that the procedures use all imaging methods and 70 (37.43%) did not know what methods interventional radiology uses. Less than 50% of participants recognize the procedures that can be performed by the specialty. The vast majority (95.19%) of the students agreed that the insertion of more information about the area during the graduation would be of great value in the academic formation. Conclusion: Medical students have poor knowledge about interventional radiology, however they are extremely positive in their desire to have this subject inserted in the curriculum of medical school

Radiology report format preferred by requesting physicians: prospective analysis in a population of physicians at a university hospital

Abstract Objective: To improve communication between attending physicians and radiologists by defining which information should be included in radiology reports and which reporting format is preferred by requesting physicians at a university hospital. Materials and Methods: Respondents were asked to choose among reports with different formats and levels of detail, related to three hypothetical cases, and questioned as to which characteristics commonly found in radiology reports are appropriate for inclusion. To assign the absolute order of preference of the different reports, the Kemeny-Young method was used. Results: Ninety-nine physicians completed the questionnaires (40.4% were resident physicians; 31.3% were preceptors of residency programs; and 28.3% were professors of medicine). For ultrasound with normal findings, ultrasound showing alterations, and computed tomography, respectively, 54%, 59%, and 53% of the respondents chose structured reports with an impression or comment. According to the respondents, the characteristics that should be included in the radiology report are the quality of the image, details of the clinical presentation, diagnostic impression, examination technique, and information about contrast administration, selected by 92%, 91%, 89%, 72%, and 68%, respectively. Other characteristics that were considered important were recommendations on follow-up and additional radiological or non-radiological investigation. Conclusion: Requesting physicians apparently prefer structured reports with a radiologist impression or comment. Information such as the quality of the examination, the contrast agent used, and suggestions regarding follow-up and additional investigation are valued