Search

AIM: To evaluate the opinion of students about Tele-education in a post-graduate University Master in Interventional Radiology. METHODS: The core curriculum of the Master is divided into 3 e-Learning modules and 2 e-Learning plus Hands-on Training modules. E-Learning is delivered through a webinar platform that allows to perform a synchronous training providing real-time lectures that are recorded for streaming on a dedicated website. The Hands-on Training is provided on site, assisting interventional radiologists in interventional procedures on patients. An online survey of 12 questions has been prepared to determine the quality of training. Students indicated their level of agreement regarding the impact of eLearning and Hands on Training using a 5-point scale. The mean score of the level of agreement was calculated. RESULTS: The series include 16 participants. The 62.5% work in a public non-academic Hospital and 80% have already performed 300 interventional procedures as primary operator. The main advantage of the eLearning module was considered the capability to facilitate the attendance to lectures (68.8%) followed by the low cost training (18.8%), with a good agreement between participants. No students scored the statements as less than 3. The Master fulfilled the learning expectations in 81.3% of cases with a good agreement between participants. CONCLUSIONS: The participants were highly satisfied and would recommend the Master to other colleagues. The blended type of education of our Master received high appreciation and could be a model to be follow in the future, also in IR.

In 2013, the new European Basic Safety Standards Directive 2013/59/Euratom (BSS Directive), which defines the new legal framework for the use of ionising radiation in medical imaging and radiotherapy, was published. In 2014, the ESR EuroSafe Imaging Initiative was founded with a goal in mind “to support and strengthen medical radiation protection across Europe following a holistic, inclusive approach”. To support radiology departments in developing a programme of clinical audit, the ESR developed a Guide to Clinical Audit and an accompanying audit tool in 2017, with an expanded second edition released in 2019 and published under the name of Esperanto – ESR Guide to Clinical Audit in Radiology and the ESR Clinical Audit Tool, 2019. Audits represent specific aspects at a certain point in time, usually with retrospective evaluation of data. Key performance indicators (KPIs), on the other hand, are intended to enable continuous monitoring of relevant parameters, for example to provide warnings or a dashboard. KPIs, which can, for example, be recorded automatically and visualised in dashboards, are suitable for this purpose. This paper will discuss a selection of indicators covering different areas and include suggestions for their implementation.

The use of portable ultrasound (US) devices has increased in recent years and the market has been flourishing. Portable US devices can be subdivided into three groups: laptop-associated devices, hand-carried US, and handheld US devices. Almost all companies we investigated offer at least one portable US device. Portable US can also be associated with the use of different US techniques such as colour Doppler US and pulse wave (PW)-Doppler. Laptop systems will also be available with contrast-enhanced US and high-end cardiac functionality.Portable US devices are effective in the hands of experienced examiners. Imaging quality is predictably inferior to so-called high-end devices.The present paper is focused on portable US devices and clinical applications describing their possible use in different organs and clinical settings, keeping in mind that patient safety must never be compromised. Hence, portable devices must undergo the same decontamination assessment and protocols as the standard equipment, especially smartphones and tablets.

Rationale and methodology A survey of patients was carried out between January and June 2019, to better understand how patients interpret value in relation to radiology as a means to refining the concept of Value-Based Radiology (VBR) in Europe, ensure radiology’s value is properly weighted in Value-Based Health Care (VBH) metrics, and maximise the value of radiological services to patients. The survey was disseminated via various heads of radiology departments, ESR officers, patient organisations, and ESR website and social media channels. Results Responses were received from 400 patients from 22 countries. Whilst most expressed general satisfaction with the radiological services they received, certain aspects of the radiological services they received left room for improvement. Thirty-six percent of respondents reported that they were not satisfied with the information provided about the risks and benefits of procedures, and thirty-three percent reported not being satisfied with the availability of radiologists for consultation, potentially suggesting that some patients lack sufficient information to participate fully in treatment decisions. Patients were often unaware of what information they were entitled to receive. Over eighty percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the concepts of Value-Based Radiology and/or Value-Based Health Care. Conclusion In addition to procedural correctness (correct diagnosis, appropriate procedures performed), patients highly value information and communication with their radiologist (information provided about procedures, explanation of results, personal consultation). Lack of communication was found to be a cause of dissatisfaction in many cases. This could suggest a means of improving patient outcomes as measured by Value-Based Health Care metrics.

Background Radiologists undertake a wide variety of functions which have altered as technologies have evolved. The aim of this survey was to explore radiologists’ opinions concerning their role and identity in 2020. Methods The survey included 124 questions on training, daily work, interaction with colleagues and patients, involvement in teaching, research and management and task delegation. An initial draft was amended following responses from the Presidents of the 48 ESR’s national institutional member societies. The final on-line survey was available to individual ESR full members between January and March 2020. 1344 responses from radiologists in 49 European countries were obtained. Findings 80% (1049/1317) of radiologists considered a period of non-radiology clinical training mandatory and 92% (1192/1291) felt that sub-specialty expertise was important and improved the visibility of radiologists. 76% (961/1262) of radiologists regularly communicate directly with patients. Only 25% (314/1238) had undergone formal communications training although 82% (1020/1238) felt that this would be beneficial. Radiologists highly value their positive interaction with colleagues, including within multi-disciplinary team meetings, despite limited resources. Difficulties identified included high workload, especially the need to cover general work in parallel with the need to offer subspecialty expertise. 66% (837/1262) felt that lack of visibility to patients is a risk to radiology and professional visibility could be improved by radiology-led research and teaching. Conclusions ESR activities should aim to (1) support radiologists with sub-specialty training and maintenance of competencies; (2) develop recommendations for patient communications training and multi-disciplinary working with strong clinical integration; (3) enhance radiologists’ visibility by harnessing opportunities for radiology-led research and education.

The recently implemented European Council Basic Safety and Standards Directive (BSSD), 2013/59/Euratom lays down core radiation protection standards for European radiology departments, with a mandatory requirement for supporting clinical audit processes. A survey on behalf of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) was undertaken in November 2018 involving the ESR EuroSafe Imaging Star department network to assess compliance with selected key BSSD requirements, with emphasis also on clinical audit/re-audit. 64% of invited departments participated and the survey results revealed a lack of compliance with BSSD requirements even when allowing for work in progress within departments. Justification processes showed the lowest rates of compliance overall, with varying results relating to dose limits, patient information and significant accidental exposure notification. Questions around implementation of diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) revealed generally far higher compliance with requirements. The survey findings confirm a lack of compliance with key BSSD radiation protection indicators and also a lack of supporting clinical audit structures. These findings are likely to be representative of the wider radiological community in Europe. There is a need for a co-ordinated response, involving relevant European agencies, national bodies and societies and also individual radiology departments to address these issues. ESR publications on clinical audit (Esperanto) and the 2018 EuroSafe Imaging Call for Action will be important components of this response. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13244-019-0734-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The importance of clinical audit in radiological practice is increasingly recognised and undertaking clinical audit “in accordance with national procedures” is mandatory for radiology departments within the European Union following implementation of the Basic Safety Standard Directive (BSSD), 2013/59/Euratom in 2018. This survey, sent to all National Radiological Societies in Europe in 2018, evaluated the current status of clinical audit at national level and supporting infrastructure, and explored the potential for wider co-operation and collaboration in developing and evaluating clinical audit processes. Responses were received from 36/47 (76.6%) National Societies. Broadly responses indicated an increasing awareness of the importance of clinical audit, but highlighted deficiencies in necessary infrastructure and resources required for enhancement and development of existing clinical audit systems. National Societies are well placed, in the context of appropriate and prioritised resource allocation, to collaborate with other European bodies, in particular the European Society of Radiology (ESR), to help lead on these important changes, with the potential to provide external direction.

Since February 2018, the Directive 2013/59/EURATOM (EU-BSS) requires all EU member states to implement a system for recording and analysis of all accidental or unintended medical exposures (Article 63). An ESR questionnaire in May 2018 among ESR member countries including all EU member states (MS) revealed a very heterogeneous and unsatisfactory situation in transposition of the EU-BSS. Some MS just translated this part of the directive, others used effective dose as reporting criteria and others used physical dose parameters from the modalities. This white paper will help national scientific organisations advice their national regulators and authorities on how to provide a simple and practicable implementation of the directive. ESR recommends notification and reporting criteria for significant events based on physical quantities and units and not on effective dose or text-based criteria like “significantly different” (EU-BSS, Article 4 (99)).

Fusion imaging allows exploitation of the strengths of all imaging modalities simultaneously, eliminating or minimizing the weaknesses of every single modality. Ultrasound (US) fusion imaging provides benefits in real time from both the dynamic information and spatial resolution of the normal US and the high-contrast resolution and wider field of view of the other imaging methods. US fusion imaging can also be associated with the use of different ultrasound techniques such as color Doppler US, elastography, and contrast-enhanced US (CEUS), for better localization and characterization of lesions. The present paper is focused on US fusion imaging technologies and clinical applications describing the possible use of this promising imaging technique in the liver, kidney, and pancreatic pathologies.

We are arguably entering a new era in scientific research. The availability of novel research tools, such as the human genome sequence and inexpensive genome sequencing have the potential not only to provide new insights into the fundamental biology of many conditions, but, literally, to redefine health and disease [...]

Based on the SYMPLICITY studies and CE (Conformité Européenne) certification, renal denervation is currently applied as a novel treatment of resistant hypertension in Europe. However, information on the proportion of patients with resistant hypertension qualifying for renal denervation after a thorough work-up and treatment adjustment remains scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation and the reasons for noneligibility at 11 expert centers participating in the European Network COordinating Research on renal Denervation in treatment-resistant hypertension (ENCOReD). The analysis included 731 patients. Age averaged 61.6 years, office blood pressure at screening was 177/96 mm Hg, and the number of blood pressure-lowering drugs taken was 4.1. Specialists referred 75.6% of patients. The proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation according to the SYMPLICITY HTN-2 criteria and each center's criteria was 42.5% (95% confidence interval, 38.0%-47.0%) and 39.7% (36.2%-43.2%), respectively. The main reasons of noneligibility were normalization of blood pressure after treatment adjustment (46.9%), unsuitable renal arterial anatomy (17.0%), and previously undetected secondary causes of hypertension (11.1%). In conclusion, after careful screening and treatment adjustment at hypertension expert centers, only ≈40% of patients referred for renal denervation, mostly by specialists, were eligible for the procedure. The most frequent cause of ineligibility (approximately half of cases) was blood pressure normalization after treatment adjustment by a hypertension specialist. Our findings highlight that hypertension centers with a record in clinical experience and research should remain the gatekeepers before renal denervation is considered. ispartof: Hypertension vol:63 issue:6 pages:1319-25 ispartof: location:United States status: published