With so many entities involved in healthcare, just who do radiologists work for?
I was slogging my way through one of my overnight teleradiology shifts when I opened up a trauma case. Immediately, I knew it was a bad one. Not because of the history (the ERs never give a history better than “trauma,” whether the injury is being struck by a ping-pong ball or a freight train). Rather, the sheer number of imaging-studies done on the patient is often a clue…and this individual had around 10 CTs on the worklist.
Sure enough, the very first scan (the head) was pretty bad-subarachnoid blood all over, multiple skull fractures, pneumocephalus, etc. I certainly wasn’t about to wait until I’d read the patient’s other scans before notifying the ER, so I rang them up…and learned that the patient had, in fact, died shortly after leaving the CT area.
I, then, turned to the task of reading out the remaining bundle of cases, but with a nagging sense of pointlessness. Yes, the studies had been done, so some insuring entity would be billed for them, and as teleradiology is a productivity-based affair, I would be earning my keep with each of the reads. But who, really, was I working for? And, in the greater scheme of things, who are we working for even under more cheerful circumstances?
I know I’d like the answer to be that we’re working for the patients we image. They’re the ones in need of help, and by any moral approach I can conceive they’re the ones we should care about. However, other than helpfully providing the bodies which fill our scanners, they tend not to have much input into our affairs. In the vast majority of cases, they’re not giving us our marching orders, they’re not reviewing our handiwork, and they don’t directly pay for the work we’ve done (or know how much was paid in their name).
More realistically, we seem to be working for a whole cast of characters, even those of us who are department heads or running our own practices. Insurance companies, governmental regulators, referring clinicians, professional societies...it could even be said we indirectly work for lawyers, every time we cover our metaphorical rears to minimize the risk of medical malpractice suits. Each boss wants something different from us (sometimes conflicting with one or more other bosses in the list)…and not all of them highly prioritize the best interests of our patients, who should be priority one in all of this.
An oft-quoted line from Homer: “If you serve too many masters, you'll soon suffer.” Trying to keep patients from suffering in the crossfire is an unrecognized service we routinely provide.
Burnout in Radiology: Key Risk Factors and Promising Solutions
June 9th 2025Recognizing the daunting combination of increasing imaging volume and workforce shortages, these authors discuss key risk factors contributing to burnout and moral injury in radiology, and potential solutions to help preserve well-being among radiologists.
Mammography AI Platform for Five-Year Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Gets FDA De Novo Authorization
June 2nd 2025Through AI recognition of subtle patterns in breast tissue on screening mammograms, the Clairity Breast software reportedly provides validated risk scoring for predicting one’s five-year risk of breast cancer.
The Reading Room: Artificial Intelligence: What RSNA 2020 Offered, and What 2021 Could Bring
December 5th 2020Nina Kottler, M.D., chief medical officer of AI at Radiology Partners, discusses, during RSNA 2020, what new developments the annual meeting provided about these technologies, sessions to access, and what to expect in the coming year.
Can Emerging AI Software Offer Detection of CAD on CCTA on Par with Radiologists?
May 14th 2025In a study involving over 1,000 patients who had coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) exams, AI software demonstrated a 90 percent AUC for assessments of cases > CAD-RADS 3 and 4A and had a 98 percent NPV for obstructive coronary artery disease.
Could AI-Powered Abbreviated MRI Reinvent Detection for Structural Abnormalities of the Knee?
April 24th 2025Employing deep learning image reconstruction, parallel imaging and multi-slice acceleration in a sub-five-minute 3T knee MRI, researchers noted 100 percent sensitivity and 99 percent specificity for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears.