A few years ago I published my deep dive into the bylaws of the American Board of Radiology. Bylaws are boring, dry documents that most people don’t care about and even fewer read. But they do shed light on the culture of an organization and its priorities. The ABR’s were comically nefarious. For example, their old conflict of interest policy (emphasis mine):

It is the policy of this Corporation that the legal duty of loyalty owed to this Corporation by a Governor serving on the Board of Governors of this Corporation requires the Governor to act in the best interests of this Corporation, even if discharging that duty requires the Governor to support actions that might be contrary to the views, interests, policies, or actions of another organization of which the Governor is a member, or to the discipline of which the Governor is a member. Consistent with a Governor’s duty of loyalty, a person serving as a Governor of this Corporation does not serve or act as the “representative” of any other organization, and his or her “constituency” as a Governor of this Corporation is solely this Corporation and is not any other organization or its members.

The ABR approved an update to their bylaws on November 2, 2022 (available here), and they’ve finessed that bit by removing the bolded language above. It now reads:

It is the policy of this Corporation that the legal duty of loyalty owed to this Corporation by an individual while serving in the capacity as a member of the Board of Governors or Board of Trustees requires the individual to act in the best interests of this Corporation. Consistent with the duty of loyalty, a person serving as a member of the Board of Governors or Board of Trustees does not serve or act as the “representative” of any other organization, and said member’s “constituency” as a member of the Board of Governors or Board of Trustees of this Corporation is solely this Corporation and is not any other organization or its members.

So they’ve removed that choice verbiage requiring selling out radiology itself in the interest of the ABR: “even if discharging that duty requires the Governor to support actions that might be contrary to the views, interests, policies, or actions of another organization of which the Governor is a member, or to the discipline of which the Governor is a member.”

Good for them.

On a related note, in case you’re wondering, the composition of the “executive compensation committee” is unchanged:

Executive Compensation Committee. The Executive Compensation Committee will carry out the Board of Governors’ responsibilities for designing, managing and annually reviewing Executive compensation and the Executive compensation policy. This committee will consist of the President, President Elect, and at least one (1) additional member from the Board of Governors appointed by the President. The President will chair the committee.

As I mused in my previous post:

I love that the committee that handles executive compensation is chaired by the president and then attended by the president-elect and “at least one additional” presidential appointee. Good thing that a conflict of interest for the ABR is just when a Governor cares about something outside of the ABR.

The bylaws of the American Board of Radiology are interesting. I’ve written about them here, and you should read that post. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Relevent to an email blast the ABR sent out this week is section 4.3:

Section 4.3. Election of Governors. Nominees shall be solicited from the Board of Trustees and Board of Governors, and may be solicited from any appropriate professional organization. Professional organizations shall provide such nominations in writing. An affirmative vote of at least three-fourths (3/4ths) of the entire Board of Governors shall be necessary for the election of any nominee to the Board of Governors.

The Board of Governors is the main decision-making body of the ABR. Historically, as you might surmise, it’s been a pretty insular group. The people already in charge nominate their friends and colleagues, most of whom have already put in the time and effort to earn a place in this upper echelon through years of service to the organization.

As I wrote in that post:

If you didn’t know, there are currently 8 Governors, and they basically run the show. Lincoln’s famous “team of rivals” approach this is not. The current people in power shall nominate their replacements and other organizations may, but the key for any hopeful member is making sure that you fit in with the cool kids, essentially guaranteeing that no one with substantially differing views would ever make it to the upper echelon.

On November 7, the ABR sent an email out to all diplomates (people who are board-certified):

The American Board of Radiology (ABR) is seeking interested candidates to serve on its Board of Governors. The Board of Governors discharges the fiduciary duties of the Board through its oversight of the business and affairs of the ABR.

The ABR recognizes the benefits inherent in a diverse community and seeks individuals with varied experiences, perspectives, and backgrounds. Interested candidates must be board certified by the ABR and willing to participate in Continuing Certification (MOC). Those from nonacademic practice environments are especially encouraged to apply.

And the nomination process for those interested candidates?

Nomination Process: Interested candidates should send a curriculum vitae and a letter of interest before November 15, 2022, to Brent Wagner, MD, ABR Executive Director (bwagner@theabr.org).

How about that.

Now presumably the actually election process is still the same (as is the impressive Conflict of Interest policy), but I believe this is the first time the ABR has publicly asked for all-comers. Now that doesn’t mean they’ll actually take any of those candidates seriously or that such candidates would ever comprise more than a single spot on the board, but—nonetheless—I would encourage anyone interested to apply.

In August, the results of a large ACR survey about radiologists’ opinions concerning MOC were released. The summary:

Similar proportions judged the existing program as excellent or very good (36%), or fair or poor (35%), with 27% neutral. MOC–CC was perceived more often as excellent or very good by those who were grandfathered yet still participating in MOC, were in academic practice, were in an urban setting, were older, or had a role with the ABR. In contrast, MOC–CC was more often judged as fair or poor by those who were not grandfathered, were in private practice, were in a rural setting, or were younger.

It’s a pretty sharp divide. Perhaps it is no great surprise that ABR volunteers and grandfathered academics are among those who view the ABR’s offering most favorably. The whole paper is worth a read, and the survey construction itself was very involved.

I’m not personally involved in any of this work, but the story behind why the survey even occurred (which I’m relaying secondhand) is perhaps the most interesting part.

If you recall, there was an ACR Taskforce on Certification in Radiology that was initially authorized in 2019 and concluded in 2020. You can read my highlights and analysis of their work here.

You also might not recall said task force, because their work apparently marks the only time in history that the ACR Board of Chancellors voted against authorizing a task force to submit their findings as a paper to the JACR. What could have been a paper shared with the broader radiology community was instead buried in a lonely random corner of the ACR website.

This is politics at work, of course.

Behind the scenes, the executive committee asked the task force to water down their language and conclusions, remove certain points, and generally “be nice.” The ACR, trying to repair some historically sour relationships with other radiology societies, didn’t want to be mean to the ABR. It probably doesn’t help when inbred leadership positions across multiple societies read like a game of musical chairs. It was apparently after multiple rounds of softening edits that the task force report was eventually buried anyway.

As a consolation, the board did permit a next-step survey in order to ascertain the true feelings of the radiology community (and not just the task force’s presumably squeaky wheels). The ACR used an outside consultant to help generate a fair survey, and then at the subsequent request of leadership, all “irrelevant” questions concerning the ongoing lawsuit, handling of COVID-19/testing delays, and the kerfuffle over the MOC agreement, etc were excised.

The survey results paper was initially submitted to JACR in 2021 and was–as you may have surmised–also rejected (though please note that the JACR is editorially independent). Much back and forth ensued–largely in order to limit perceived “bias against the ABR”–and the paper you see was finally published a year later.

In the end, thanks to editorial assistance, the limitations section is longer than the neutered discussion.

Previously in the PE series, we spoke with someone who joined a practice that had previously been purchased (before eventually leaving). In this entry, we’re hearing from someone who joined an independent practice and was an associate in the work-up when the group sold.

Just like last time, I’ve sanitized names and some details. This case study is food for thought, not an indictment of a specific group or corporate entity.

(more…)

It was a nice surprise to see over my busy call long weekend that I was nominated as a semifinalist for Aunt Minnie’s “most effective radiology educator” this year.

Or something like that:

https://twitter.com/PrometheusLion/status/1565118659240001539?s=20&t=PUxRKJnzqPV3qiuqppaTuw

As always, thanks for reading.

While I generally like to stay away from absolutely prescriptive advice, I think most radiologists would agree that the specific phrase “correlate clinically” is basically a microaggression against clinicians. It’s a triggering common joke that automatically lowers your work in the eyes of the reader. If somebody must correlate, then they should be told what they should correlate with: direct inspection, physical exam, CBC, a possible history of X symptom, sign, or disease, etc. Most of the “never say this” and “always say that” saber-rattling in radiology is nonsense, but this is an easy way to make friends.

Going further:

A new radiology resident typically begins training without much meaningful radiology experience but with substantial clinical knowledge. Don’t give it up. Of course, you will likely not stay up-to-date with every specific medical therapy used to treat the diseases you used to manage as an intern, but good radiologists retain a significant fraction of the pathophysiology that underlies the imaging manifestations of the diseases we train to discern and then supplements that foundation with a growing understanding of subspecialized management. That combination informs their approach in creating actionable reports for referring clinicians, reports that contain more of the things they care about and fewer that they don’t.

In the world of outpatient radiology, it’s common for patient histories to be lackluster. Frequently the only available information from the ordering provider is the diagnosis code(s) used to justify insurance reimbursement. In many cases, radiologists rely more on a few words provided by the patient directly (filtered through the technologist that performs the imaging study). We don’t always have the context we need to do our best work. It’s as frustrating as it is unavoidable.

In the more inpatient (or academic medical center) world that dominates residency training, it’s common to see at first glance a similar diagnosis code or short “reason for exam” text from the EMR, frequently limited in length and sometimes further limited to specific indications in the name of appropriate use (e.g. “head trauma, mod-severe, peds 0-18y”).

As a young radiologist, it is in your best interest to not rely on so thin a justification as what is readily dropped into the report via a Powerscribe merge field if you have access to richer information. You may know very little radiology, but you remain literate. You will do yourself and your patients a favor by supplementing your nascent diagnostic acumen with a real history obtained from reading actual notes written by actual humans. So often the provided “reason for exam” is willfully incomplete or frankly deliberately misleading, like the patient with acute-onset left hemiparesis resulting in a ground-level fall arriving with a history of “head trauma” instead of stroke. Or pretty much everyone with a history of “altered mental status.” So often, the clinical correlation was there all along. It’s part of the learning process that helps make the most of your limited training time.

“You can’t see what you’re not looking for” is a classic adage for a reason. You sometimes have to know the real history–as much as realistically feasible–in order to either make the finding or to put them into context.

So, before you ask anyone else to “correlate clinically,” maybe see if you can do it yourself.

This is part three in a series of posts about private equity in radiology. The first was this essay. The second was an interview with former PE analyst and current independent radiologist Dr. Kurt Schoppe.

This third entry is a Q&A with a radiologist who recently left a PE-owned practice and their experience as someone who joined a freshly purchased practice, made “partner,” and then left anyway.

I suspect this radiologist’s experience is very generalizable, but regardless it’s a rare and interesting perspective to hear, especially regarding their equity/stock holdings. The person providing their perspective will remain anonymous, and I’m also not interested in naming and shaming the group. This is intended to share a novel viewpoint and be helpful for trainees (and maybe also be interesting to spectators):

(more…)