As someone who has seen techs and RAs trained to interpret (not trained them myself, so don’t get punchy)… it’s a really mixed picture.
They can eventually get to the level of a low level radiologist. This is the truth.
BUT
- They have no range. They interpret only one kind (or a small set) of studies and cannot cover anything else
- It takes them a long long time to get to a point of weak independence. The talent pool is different. Some of these RAs are motivated to learn. Some just are not, period.
- they can’t read cross sectional at all and are basically limited to plain films. They can’t do cross modality comparisons. Cross sectional imaging is much harder to read, even if it’s second nature to trained rads. Could they do it eventually? Sure, but it will take a lot of time and effort to get to a minimum level of a basic radiologist.
- They can’t interpret EMR histories very well and certainly with not a lot of insight. This important “extra” stuff takes years and years of experience. Could you train them to do this eventually? Yes. But it will take a long long time and may not even work (depending on the individual, high school grads are not just gonna drop in and interpret an oncology note).
- The length of training for cross sectional makes it kind of unfeasible for OJT. You would need to set up an “alternate pathway” of training for these folks with constant training so they could simulate an MD looking at imaging. That really would be sealing one’s doom. I’m sure the creeps at RadPartners are working on a “TopGun” “academy” for RAs.
- Many referring subspecialists will not tolerate an RA read of cross sectional. They’re not going to go consult with the RA about the differential for a chest wall mass. Referring docs understand the quality argument even if hospital admins won’t. Referrers are our allies here.
- The more of these RAs you need, the weaker the talent pool will become. Right now it’s just super motivated RAs who have some talent so are drawn to the idea of interpreting. But this “bell curve” is skewed and the mean is going to be way way lower than this.
- AI w/ midlevel is a bit of a deceptive concept, because it sort of implies that the human will QA the mistakes that the AI makes but this requires a level expertise which a midlevel will almost certainly not have. “AI + midlevel” means “AI reads and some poorly trained human is tacked on to absorb liability / increase public acceptance / do physical scut a computer cannot do” If the RAs of the future are anything like the RAs of today, they will just sign off on the AI and “idgaf”.
Couple other thoughts.
As tempting as it is to think that — because of forums and such — your individual voice is powerful, the individual radiologist is powerless here. It will be foisted upon you or not by someone more powerful than you and your only recourse is quitting in a blaze of indignation. Good luck. Firm polite collective action at the ACR level from concerned rads (and ally referring docs) is the way to make a difference - if a difference can be made.
Also, qxrt has it right on the money. Some radiologists read like trash. A midlevel can replicate trash much much MUCH more easily than they can add value. So for trashcan rads, the midlevel objections are clearly a case of radiologist guild mindset and no one important really cares about that. If you’re going to make a compelling argument here it can’t be only on the basis of cost or guild sentiment, genuine quality has to play a role — in the medical world this is minimized by corporate interests (or the term is used deceptively), but it is *always* compelling to the ultimate consumer and it needs to be played that way.