Bony cochlear nerve canal stenosis and speech discrimination in pediatric unilateral hearing loss

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To examine the relationship between bony cochlear nerve canal (BCNC) width, degree of hearing loss, and speech discrimination in children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review (case-control study). METHODS: Audiometric database was cross-referenced with radiologic database at pediatric tertiary care facility to identify children with USNHL and temporal bone computed tomography. BCNC widths were measured independently by two radiologists blinded to affected ear. Regression analyses investigated associations among variables. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty children with USNHL had temporal bone imaging. Mean BCNC width was significantly smaller in affected ears, P = 0.0001. Narrower width was associated with more severe hearing loss, P = 0.01. Among children who had narrower cochlear nerve canals in affected ears compared to unaffected ears, smaller width was associated with lower speech discrimination score, P = 0.03. Increasing asymmetry in BCNC width between affected and unaffected ears was associated with poorer discrimination scores, P = 0.02. Among ears with asymmetrically smaller cochlear nerve canals, a 1-mm reduction in cochlear canal width between the normal and affected ear was associated with 30.4% lower word recognition score percentage in the affected ear, P = \u3c 0.001. CONCLUSION: There is a significant association between BCNC stenosis and impaired speech discrimination, independent of degree of hearing loss. Further investigation is needed to determine whether BCNC stenosis is a poor prognostic factor for auditory rehabilitation

What Program Directors Think IV : Results of the 2017 Annual Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) regularly surveys its members to gather information regarding a broad range of topics related to radiology residency. The survey results provide insight into the opinions of residency program leadership across the country. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational cross-sectional study using a web-based survey posed to the APDR membership in the fall of 2017. The final survey consisted of 53 items, 48 multiple choice questions and five write-in comments. An invitation to complete the survey was sent to all 319 active APDR members. RESULTS: Deidentified responses were collected electronically, tallied utilizing Qualtrics software, and aggregated for the purposes of analysis and reporting at the 66th annual meeting of the Association of University Radiologists. The response rate was 36%. CONCLUSION: Over the past 16 years, more PDs have assistant and APDs to administer growing residency programs, but the time allocation for these APDs has come from the PD\u27s protected time. An overwhelming majority of PDs consider independent call beneficial to residents and most think a call assistant is desirable. The vast majority of PDs support a unified fellowship match and allow resident moonlighting. Most fourth year residents are actively or moderately involved in clinical work and teaching. The majority of PDs have lost or expect to lose DR training positions to the new IR/DR programs. In a competitive match, PDs do not rely on residency interviews in their selection process

What program directors think IV : Results of the 2017 Annual Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) regularly surveys its members to gather information regarding a broad range of topics related to radiology residency. The survey results provide insight into the opinions of residency program leadership across the country. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational cross-sectional study using a web-based survey posed to the APDR membership in the fall of 2017. The final survey consisted of 53 items, 48 multiple choice questions and five write-in comments. An invitation to complete the survey was sent to all 319 active APDR members. RESULTS: Deidentified responses were collected electronically, tallied utilizing Qualtrics software, and aggregated for the purposes of analysis and reporting at the 66th annual meeting of the Association of University Radiologists. The response rate was 36%. CONCLUSION: Over the past 16 years, more PDs have assistant and APDs to administer growing residency programs, but the time allocation for these APDs has come from the PD\u27s protected time. An overwhelming majority of PDs consider independent call beneficial to residents and most think a call assistant is desirable. The vast majority of PDs support a unified fellowship match and allow resident moonlighting. Most fourth year residents are actively or moderately involved in clinical work and teaching. The majority of PDs have lost or expect to lose DR training positions to the new IR/DR programs. In a competitive match, PDs do not rely on residency interviews in their selection process

What Program Directors Think V: Results of the 2019 Spring Survey of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR)

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) surveys its membership annually on hot topics and new developments in radiology residency training. Here we report the results of that annual survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was posed to the APDR membership in the Fall of 2018. Members were asked 43 questions on program staffing, resident education resources/funding, impact of the integrated-Interventional Radiology residency program on Diagnostic Radiology program resources, resident interest in imaging informatics, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements on resident practice habits data reporting, institutional reliance on residents for clinical coverage, teaching format in the post-oral board era, resident conference attendance, confidentiality of the Match rank list, Early Specialization in Interventional Radiology pathway recruitment and selection, Diagnostic Radiology and Interventional Radiology program relationships, independent resident call, pediatric radiology training, diversity and unconscious bias training, and social media in radiology education. RESULTS: Responses were collected electronically, results were tallied using Qualtrics software, and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments. There were 86 respondents with a response rate of 31.3%. CONCLUSION: Survey result highlights include perceived resident interest in imaging informatics with the vast majority of residency programs offering an informatics curriculum; the provision of resident practice habits data by nearly all residency programs despite lack of clarity surrounding this Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirement; continued use of case-taking in the post-oral boards era; frequent disclosure of the Match rank list to departmental and hospital administration; low penetration of unconscious bias training in academic radiology; and finally, the successful integration of interventional and diagnostic radiology training programs

A Program Director\u27s Guide to Cultivating Diversity and Inclusion in Radiology Residency Recruitment

Diversity and inclusion are vital elements to the success of any group. Indeed, evidence from the business world indicates that a group\u27s overall talent level is a function of its collective cognitive diversity. The ability to effectively problem solve, innovate, and adapt to change all depend to a large degree on the biases and life experiences of an organization\u27s constituent members. As other industries have come to embrace this principle, their recruitment strategies have included placing a premium on employees who can think differently from one another. The benefits of diversity and inclusion have been touted in the medical literature and on social media sites in recent years. The radiology Twitter community often discusses the nuances of diversity and how it benefits all stakeholders in a radiology department. In essence, a diverse group allows for collaboration among colleagues with dissimilar experiences and perspectives, increasing the odds for discovery of new concepts and innovation (Fig 1) (1). Patients may stand to benefit the most, as diversity among practicing physicians is believed to be a key component of improving access and reducing disparities to health care in the United States (2,3)

Should Radiology Delay the Start of Fellowships? A Survey of the APDR

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Several major medical specialties have recently considered delaying the start date of their fellowship training programs to allow for completion of their trainees\u27 residency obligations. Radiology program directors (PDs) have voiced the need for a similar solution, as fellowship start dates at some institutions now occur well before the end of residency training. The objectives of this study are to assess the current state of the radiology fellowship transition and understand its impact on residency programs and clinical services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA) was used to create a survey consisting of 9 multiple choice and 2 free text questions. The survey was approved by the survey committee of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) and distributed via email to all 240 APDR members in November 2018. The survey was closed after 30 days. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (160/240). Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated some of their residents are asked to arrive at fellowships before July 1, often several days early for orientation and picture archiving and communication system (PACS) training. Sixteen percent of respondents said their own institutions ask incoming fellows to arrive early. Sixty-four percent of respondents indicated that this causes staffing problems. Seventy-eight percent of respondents supported considering a delay to the start of radiology fellowships. CONCLUSION: Most APDR members claim that residents are asked to arrive at fellowships early to complete orientation and training before July 1, and most say that this produces staffing problems on services. A significant majority of respondents support a discussion regarding delaying fellowship start dates