ARRS 2022 Abstracts


E1256. Implementation of a Patient-Centered Procedural Communication Curriculum for Radiology Residents
  1. Taylor Pate; Eastern Virginia Medical School
  2. Daniel O'Neal; Eastern Virginia Medical School
  3. Harrison Klause; Eastern Virginia Medical School
  4. Christopher Dobzyniak; Eastern Virginia Medical School
The focus of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Imaging 3.0 initiative is to shift from volume-based to value-based imaging care by successfully practicing patient-centered radiology. One important aspect of patient-centered care is procedural communication skills, which when done correctly leads to better outcomes and reduced patient anxiety. Though it is an important aspect of patient-centered care, procedural communication is not typically taught formally during resident education. Our purpose is to develop and implement a patient-centered procedural communication curriculum for radiology residents at our local institution.

Materials and Methods:
Our curriculum was implemented as a pre-course evaluation, a dedicated course, and a post-course evaluation. The pre-course evaluation consisted of a survey using 5-point Likert scales and a communications terminology quiz to gauge resident’s satisfaction with prior training, confidence in their ability, interest in additional training, and baseline knowledge of patient-centered procedural communication. These data were used to design a patient-centered procedural communication curriculum for resident education. The curriculum included a didactic lecture and interactive session that entailed residents practicing informed consent. Following completion, a post-course quiz and survey, which were identical to the pre-course evaluations, were administered and analyzed to examine the curriculums impact.

Both the pre- and post-course evaluations were completed by 15 radiology residents. One way ANOVA was used to analyze the surveys, and paired T-Test for the quizzes. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. The average familiarity with ACR Imaging 3.0 increased from slightly familiar to moderately familiar, p = 0.06. Resident’s perceived communication ability in the pre-, intra-, and post-procedural setting stayed at an average of good, p = 0.16, 0.18, and 0.2 respectively. Average test scores increased from 5.1/9 (57%) on the pre-test to 6.3/9 (70%) on the post-test, p = 0.02. Lastly, all residents felt it was either very important or extremely important to continue this training with future residents.

The integration of a dedicated patient-centered procedural communication curriculum within formal radiology resident education led to a statistically significant increase in resident knowledge. However, our surveys did not show a statistically significant difference in familiarity in ACR Imaging 3.0, nor the resident’s perceived effectiveness in procedural communication. This was likely impacted by the small number of participants and the relatively positive average pre-survey responses regarding their perceived effectiveness. It was promising to see that all the residents saw a strong importance to continue this education with future residents. The lessons learned from this project can help optimize the education for future residents and be used as a blueprint for other residency programs looking to improve their residents’ non-interpretive skills.