maxxor

10+ Year Member
Apr 11, 2009
910
691
Status
Attending Physician

Put out by Penn....by and MBA.....

Guess that takes Penn off my list of places to apply.
Penn has a real addiction to RRAs. About a year or two ago there was a internet drama about Penn and Yale using these.

Reading the study, it’s a trash experimental methodology. I can’t believe JACR published it, unless the ACR actually wants RRAs to be used.
 
About the Ads

Steve_Zissou

5+ Year Member
Aug 4, 2014
4,834
6,361
Penn has a real addiction to RRAs. About a year or two ago there was a internet drama about Penn and Yale using these.

Reading the study, it’s a trash experimental methodology. I can’t believe JACR published it, unless the ACR actually wants RRAs to be used.
Are there any other programs known for doing this? I’d like to avoid the biggest offenders trying to create DR midlevels.
 

AnxietyMonster

2+ Year Member
Apr 5, 2016
12
18
Jesus christ can we not? Are the rad societies going to make a stand against this? I know it may benefit some current rads to be more "productive" but is it actually good for patient care....? Is this going to be a problem? rad extenders and AI now, uff
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve_Zissou

Aurum

7+ Year Member
Dec 21, 2011
99
96
GA
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Probably says more about Penn residents than it does about extenders. Ivory tower residencies with lots of fellows often coddle the residents. Let's see the numbers from a mid-tier program without a bunch of fellows. I bet the difference is gone/minimized.
I feel that the difference between the residents and the extenders stems from the fact that the extenders were trained to do a specific task, presumably by the same attendings who would final sign the studies. The RRAs likely were trained to cater to a specific style, in contrast to residents who learn from multiple different attendings, divisions, and texts. Remember, this study specifically looked at time to final sign and not overall accuracy (which was the same among residents and RRAs).

Differences among residency programs would likely be negligible. If you are training someone to specifically emulate your own style and verbage, you are obviously going to sign off on their report faster versus someone who may say the same thing differently. It seems specious to criticize the residents when the outcome measured does not reflect their accuracy.

For what it's worth, I cannot find the original JACR article. Perhaps they pulled it?
 

Gastrapathy

no longer apathetic
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Feb 27, 2007
5,426
4,757
Status
Attending Physician
To publish a paper with this thesis shows that these “attendings” view residents as their workforce rather than their students. It reflects terribly on the culture at Penn and they should be ashamed. The purpose of a residency is to take a medical student and turn them into an attending. To even make this meaningless comparison shows that they’ve lost sight of that. Sad.
 

Steve_Zissou

5+ Year Member
Aug 4, 2014
4,834
6,361
To publish a paper with this thesis shows that these “attendings” view residents as their workforce rather than their students. It reflects terribly on the culture at Penn and they should be ashamed. The purpose of a residency is to take a medical student and turn them into an attending. To even make this meaningless comparison shows that they’ve lost sight of that. Sad.
Seems like First author was a PhD/MBA. Either way, looks like the article was pulled from JACR. Still gonna keep penn off my list.
 

TheDarkness

5+ Year Member
Apr 15, 2015
1
1
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Probably says more about Penn residents than it does about extenders. Ivory tower residencies with lots of fellows often coddle the residents. Let's see the numbers from a mid-tier program without a bunch of fellows. I bet the difference is gone/minimized.
I can assure you from having seen hard data that even with extenders, Penn residents are reading far more studies and more complex studies than a "mid-tier program." Why do you think Penn feels like it needs extenders? The volume is colossal. The problem is that Penn is trying to fix the issue in a a controversial manner (intentionally leaving out my personal opinion of the extenders here and the economics behind the decision, so I am not making a value judgment, just stating a fact). Residents there read as much or more on call than attendings at many places, including private practice. P.S. Forgot to mention they still have independent call at Penn, something that is disappearing, even at your vaunted mid-tier programs.

I feel that the difference between the residents and the extenders stems from the fact that the extenders were trained to do a specific task, presumably by the same attendings who would final sign the studies. The RRAs likely were trained to cater to a specific style, in contrast to residents who learn from multiple different attendings, divisions, and texts. Remember, this study specifically looked at time to final sign and not overall accuracy (which was the same among residents and RRAs).

Differences among residency programs would likely be negligible. If you are training someone to specifically emulate your own style and verbage, you are obviously going to sign off on their report faster versus someone who may say the same thing differently. It seems specious to criticize the residents when the outcome measured does not reflect their accuracy.

For what it's worth, I cannot find the original JACR article. Perhaps they pulled it?
I have reason to believe this is also true. When attendings are extremely particular about the language used, even when the resident's language conveys the same information effectively, they will change the report or addend it. An extender working with the same people for a prolonged period will learn their idiosyncrasies.

To publish a paper with this thesis shows that these “attendings” view residents as their workforce rather than their students. It reflects terribly on the culture at Penn and they should be ashamed. The purpose of a residency is to take a medical student and turn them into an attending. To even make this meaningless comparison shows that they’ve lost sight of that. Sad.
This is, unfortunately, the real issue. Assume, for fun, that extenders actually do make radiologists more efficient. Assume that you do not need to be a doctor to read chest radiographs. The comparison to residents, who are in a trainee role, is unnecessary. They could have just shown that extenders make attendings faster and, while controversial, would not have pulled the residents into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve_Zissou

Dave1980

10+ Year Member
Jan 25, 2007
589
1,218
Status
Attending Physician
Penn residents are reading far more studies and more complex studies than a "mid-tier program."
You must have some dog in this fight since you made an account just to comment in this thread. I have heard from multiple people who have first hand knowledge of the program that the residents are treated with kid gloves because of the large number of fellows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigt1mer
Oct 23, 2020
1
0
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I can assure you from having seen hard data that even with extenders, Penn residents are reading far more studies and more complex studies than a "mid-tier program."
So this is either not true or the same kind of study design comparing radiology residents to X ray techs.

How is it possible you are comparing the complexity of studies to another institution? What is PENNs secret algorithm to classify a mid tier program? What is the metric you are using to compare the volume of studies? Are the residents simply reading 300 chest x rays daily incorrectly?

There is nothing wrong with a resident coming to the defense of their program, particularly when the program put you in a very uncomfortable position in front of the entire radiology community, but try to avoid blatant falsehoods like this.
 
About the Ads