Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Do We Teach High-Value Radiology?

  • Quality and Safety (H Abujudeh, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Radiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The healthcare environment is under tremendous flux and the rate of change is continuously increasing. Calls have been made and efforts are underway to transform medical education. In this article, trends, key drivers, and resources for both global medical education and some specific to radiology are discussed.

Recent Findings

Great strides have been made to begin shifting focus towards high-value healthcare delivery through both non-traditional methods and innovation. We are not alone in this journey; resources are readily offered by instrumental key drivers of medical education with collaboration and sharing as valuable tools at our disposal.

Summary

Despite initial progress, barriers persist to achieving meaningful and sustainable changes in medical education. We must commit our resources and empower our current and future medical providers to lead the way in providing high-value healthcare for our patients. An awareness of trends and driving forces in healthcare and medical education is necessary for radiologists to be relevant and vital contributors to the healthcare team.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Recently published references of particular interest have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–81. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1011024.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National health expenditures 2016 highlights. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html. Accessed 7 Dec 2017.

  3. Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine Staff, and Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Singh H, Graber ML. Improving diagnosis in health care—the next imperative for patient safety. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(26):2493–5. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1512241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahrq.gov. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ahrq.gov (2018). Accessed 3 Feb. 2018.

  7. Flexner A. Medical education in the United States and Canada: a report to the Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 1910.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davis DA, et al. Rethinking CME: an imperative for academic medicine and faculty development. Acad Med. 2011;86(4):468–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820dfacf.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Taylor DCM, Hossam H. Adult learning theories: implications for learning and teaching in medical education: AMEE guide no. 83. Med Teach. 2013;35(11):e1561–72. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.828153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bloom BS. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans, Green; 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Willis MH, et al. Clinical decision support at the point-of-order entry. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(10):1309–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.01.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Triola MM, et al. New directions in e-learning research in health professions education: report of two symposia. Med Teach. 2012;34(1):e15–20. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.638010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cook DA, Erwin PJ, Triola MM. Computerized virtual patients in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2010;85:1340–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181edfe13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ziv A, et al. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Acad Med. 2003;78: 783–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12915366.

  17. Preeti B, Ashish A, Shriram G. Problem based learning (PBL)—an effective approach to improve learning outcomes in medical teaching. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(12):2896–7. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2013/7339.3787.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Havyer RD, et al. Addressing the interprofessional collaboration competencies of the association of American Medical Colleges: a systematic review of assessment instruments in undergraduate medical education. Acad Med. 2016;91(6):865–88. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001053.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bartman T, et al. Interprofessional QI training enhances competency and qi productivity among graduates: findings from nationwide children’s hospital. Acad Med. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Higginson J, Lake DM. Chapter 7. Principles of teamwork and team science. In: Skochelak SE, Hawkins RE, Lawson LE, Starr SR, Borkan JM, Gonzalo JD, editors. Health systems science. New York: Elsevier; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ahrq.gov. TeamStepps. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/index.html (2018). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  22. Wong BM, et al. Teaching quality improvement and patient safety to trainees: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2010;85(9):1425–39. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181e2d0c6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wong BM, Levinson W, Shojania KG. Quality improvement in medical education: current state and future directions. Med Educ. 2012;46(1):107–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04154.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. •• American Medical Association. Creating a community of innovation: the work of the AMA accelerating change in medical education consortium. Chicago; 2017. A current report that highlights the consortium’s achievements, including emerging innovations in physician education and evidence-based impact on best practices. The report continues to inspire the future direction of collaborative efforts to change medical education.

  25. •• Gonzalo JD, Skochelak SE, Wolpaw DR: Chapter 1. Health systems science in medical education. In: Skochelak SE, Hawkins RE, Lawson LE, Starr SR, Borkan JM, Gonzalo JD, editors. Health systems science. Elsevier; 2017. The first chapter in the Health Systems Science textbook introduces the new, 3rd pillar of science in medical education, which is a cornerstone of value in health care.

  26. Gonzalo JD, Starr SR, Borkan JM. Chapter 2. What is Health systems science? Building an integrated vision. In: Skochelak SE, Hawkins RE, Lawson LE, Starr SR, Borkan JM, Gonzalo JD, editors. Health systems science. New York: Elsevier; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Regenstrief Institute. Homepage—Regenstrief Institute. https://www.regenstrief.org (2016). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  28. Aamc.org. Teaching for quality—continuing education and improvement—initiatives—AAMC. https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/cei/te4q/ (2018). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  29. Weiss KB, et al. Introducing the CLER pathways to excellence: a new way of viewing clinical learning environments. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6(3):608–9. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-14-00347.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Thrall JH. Quality and safety revolution in health care. Radiology. 2004;233(1):3–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Abms.org. Steps toward initial certification and MOC| ABMS. http://www.abms.org/board-certification/steps-toward-initial-certification-and-moc/ (2018). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  32. Ihi.org. Overview. http://www.ihi.org/education/ihiopenschool/overview/Pages/default.aspx (2018). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  33. Costsofcare.org. This is our story—costs of care. http://costsofcare.org/home/ (2016). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  34. Choosingwisely.org. Choosing wisely promoting conversations between providers and patients. http://www.choosingwisely.org (2018). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  35. ABIM Foundation. (2018). ABIM Foundation | Advancing Medical Professionalism. http://abimfoundation.org [Accessed 3 Feb. 2018].

  36. National Resident Matching Program. Results and data: 2017 main residency match®. National Resident Matching Program, Washington, DC; 2017

  37. • Straus CM, et al. Medical student radiology education: summary and recommendations from a national survey of medical school and radiology department leadership. J Am Coll Radiol 2014;11(6): 606–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2014.01.012. A national survey that demonstrates the critical need for a bolder presence of radiologists in medical education with recommendations to address these gaps.

  38. Rohr A, et al. Impact of case-based radiology education on first-year medical students’ knowledge, perceptions, and interests in the field of radiology. AMJ. 2017;10(2):153–8. https://doi.org/10.21767/AMJ.2017.2898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Branstetter BF IV, et al. Preclinical medical student training in radiology: the effect of early exposure. AJR. 2007;188:W9–14. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.2139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Friedman MV, et al. Impact of an interactive diagnostic case simulator on a medical student radiology rotation. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):1256–61. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sarwar A, et al. Metrics for radiologists in the era of value-based health care delivery. Radiographics. 2015;35(3):866–76. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Squire-statement.org. SQUIRE. About SQUIRE. http://www.squire-statement.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&pageId=488 (2017). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  43. Goodman D, et al. Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (standards for quality improvement reporting excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature. BMJ Qual Saf Published Online First: 13 April 2016. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004480.

  44. Ash JS, et al. Some unintended consequences of clinical decision support systems. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007: 26–30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2813668/.

  45. Goldzweig CL, et al. Electronic health record-based interventions for improving appropriate diagnostic imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:557–65. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. American College of Radiology. Clinical decision support. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Decision-Support (2018). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  47. Jones J. Teaching imaging appropriateness. https://www.acr.org/Practice-Management-Quality-Informatics/Imaging-3/Case-Studies/Quality-and-Safety/Teaching-Imaging-Appropriateness (2017). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  48. American College of Radiology. R-SCAN: radiology support communication and alignment network. https://rscan.org (2017). Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

  49. Larson DB, Mickelsen LJ, Garcia K. Realizing Improvement through team empowerment (RITE): a team-based, project-based multidisciplinary improvement program. Radiographics. 2016;36(7):2170–83. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016160136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Viet T. Le & Marc H. Willis

Authors
  1. Viet T. Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc H. Willis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc H. Willis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Viet T. Le declares no potential conflicts of interest. Marc H. Willis reports personal fees from Radiology Support, Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) through a Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative (TCPi) grant to the American College of Radiology.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical collection on Quality and Safety.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Le, V.T., Willis, M.H. How Do We Teach High-Value Radiology?. Curr Radiol Rep 6, 34 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-018-0291-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-018-0291-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation