Abstracts

RETURN TO ABSTRACT LISTING


E2279. Academic Radiology Department Websites: Analysis, Comparisons, and Recommendations for Subspecialty Information
Authors
  1. Shivraj Grewal; University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix
  2. Eric vanSonnenberg; University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix
  3. Zachary Sitton; University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix
  4. Manroop Kaur; University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix
Objective:
While the ACGME provides a list of nine different ACGME-accredited Radiology subspecialty programs, no standard exists for how Radiology departments should be subdivided. This raises the question of how Radiology departments currently structure themselves with respect to subspecialties and sections. Our purpose was to evaluate how Radiology departments structure themselves according to their websites and to assess the scope of fellowships that are present.

Materials and Methods:
This was a descriptive study in which the websites of Radiology departments of academic institutions (n=114) were searched for the presence of department sections/divisions, the number of sections, and the section/division titles associated with them. The number and titles of fellowships present at each institution also were collected.

Results:
According to their websites, a majority of Radiology departments (n=66/114, 57%) were subdivided to various degrees, while 48/114 (42%) departments listed no divisions or sections. Many titles were used, with the most common involving the word “Divisions” (n=33, 29%). There was a median of 9 sections per department in those that were divided (n=66), and a range of 2 to 14 sections. There were 19 prevalent division categories; the most common included: Neuro/Neuro-IR (64/66, 97%), Nuclear Medicine (62/66, 94%), Abdominal/Body (62/66, 94%), Musculoskeletal (61/66, 92%), Interventional Radiology (59/66, 89%), Cardiothoracic/Chest (57/66, 86%), Breast (56/66, 85%), and Pediatric (50/66, 76%). Less common subdivisions found in 3-42% of departments included: Emergency, Ultrasonography, Physics/Imaging, Community, Women’s, CT, MRI, Informatics, Teleradiology, Oncology, and Veterans. Departments offered a median of 4 different fellowships with a range of 0 (n=4) to 13 (n=2) per department including both ACGME and many non-ACGME accredited fellowships. Very few departments had completely unique subdivisions or fellowships (present in only one department), such as an “Artificial Intelligence” department or a “Pediatric Cardiac Radiology” fellowship.

Conclusion:
The structuring of Radiology department websites varies in divisions, how the divisions are titled, and in how many and which fellowships they offer. This study is significant for Radiology department leaders to understand how other departments are structured, and for future radiologists who wish to find out which subspecialties are available. As sub-specialization is the norm in Radiology, this study sheds light on the variability of websites, and is important to understand how Radiology departments structure themselves on their websites.