PAUL H. ELLENBOGEN, MDACR CHAIR’S MEMO

©009

Collaboration: Can We Do Better?

Collaboration — we know it whenwe see it. And yet, the definition isvariable. Some would define it asworking together to achieve a goal.According to Wikipedia, “This ismore than the intersection of com-mon goals, but a deep collective de-termination to reach an identicalobjective [1].”

The ACR as an umbrella organi-zation currently enjoys robust col-laboration with other societies atthe state, national, and interna-tional levels. The level of successfulcollaboration is probably at an alltime high. But should we be satis-fied and complacent? I think not.

At the state level, the ACR de-pends heavily on its state chapters.Those chapters elect the councilorsand alternate councilors that makeup the legislative body of the ACR:the Council. These councilors de-bate and amend College policies,including ACR Bylaws and resolu-tions, as well as evaluate and mod-ify, as needed, the ACR PracticeGuidelines and Technical Stan-dards. The Commission on Mem-bership and the Committee onState Chapters act as an effectivebridge between the ACR and itschapters. Chapter visitations seemto be very popular as ACR leadersattend and speak at the annualmeetings whenever schedulingpermits. The ACR Chapter Rec-ognition Program also highlightsand rewards those chapters thathave performed in an exemplarymanner.

At the national level, the ACRhas frequent high-level meetingswith other societies, including butnot limited to RSNA, ARRS, theABR, and ASTRO. The ACR By-laws require that representativesfrom RSNA, ARRS, ASTRO, andAmerican Radium Society sit onthe ACR Board of Chancellors.

Perhaps the most successful and

2012 American College of Radiology1-2182/12/$36.00 ● DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2012.03.015

visible collaboration is the jointlysponsored ACR/RSNA Web sitewww.RadiologyInfo.org. Originallyconceived by Peggy Fritsche, MD,and Max Cloud, MD, this publicpatient information site is nowmore than 10 years old and drawsmore than 600,000 visitors permonth. Another act of collabora-tion is that the ACR and the Societyof Chairs of Academic RadiologyDepartments have agreed to haveextensive interaction and collabora-tion on scenario planning [2]. Addi-tionally, the Association for Womenin Radiology (AAWR) and ACRhave begun discussions on activeparticipation by AWWR in the Ra-diology Leadership Institute and2015 ACR all member meeting.

Collaboration with Canada andthe international radiological com-munity also grows. The CanadianAssociation of Radiology (CAR) isrepresented by an observer on theACR Board of Chancellors and, inreturn, the vice president of theACR will attend their three annualmeetings. ACR leadership also at-tends the European Society of Ra-diology annual meeting and the bi-ennial meeting of the InternationalSociety of Radiology. We are alsoplanning a yearly global conferenceon quality and safety to be held inWashington, DC, beginning in thewinter of 2013. In addition, we areplanning coordinated internationalrelief efforts in Haiti and othercountries. As for radiation oncolo-gy-related initiatives, radiologists atEmory University in Atlanta, Geor-gia, have been collaborating withsites in India, the Czech Republic,Argentina, and Georgia [3].

So, how might we do better? Atthe state level, we need to focus on thesmaller chapters with fewer membersand resources. Some states are noteven represented at the AMCLC.

Other states have joined together to

improve their annual meeting, in-cluding North Carolina, South Car-olina, and Georgia. I have been aninvited speaker at several of thesemeetings and they work well. TheCollege is assessing how theChapter Leaders Meeting held atthe AMCLC might explore waysto expand this concept.

At the national level we have50-plus radiology organizations,both small and large. As GeraldDodd III, MD, has written in JACRthat the majority of attendees at the2010 Summer Conference sug-gested “joint annual meetings be-tween 2 or more organizations, thecreation of a clearinghouse formeeting scheduling, coordinateddevelopment of self-assessmentmodules, the development of anonline site for ‘one stop shopping’for paying dues and making foun-dation contributions [4].” Most ofthese suggestions have not been im-

Paul H. Ellenbogen, MD, BOC Chair

plemented. The ACR strategic in-

301

302 ACR Chair’s Memo

tegration with ARRS was not suc-cessful, however, other means ofcollaboration may exist betweenthe organizations, and perhapssome form of integration may bepossible in the future. Another areaof concern is that both ACR andRSNA are about to launch leader-ship training programs. Unfortu-nately, the RSNA has decided notto collaborate with ACR and hasgone their own way with some sig-nificant overlap in offerings. Addi-tionally, there has been some dis-

cord in the last 2 years between the

Society of Nuclear Medicine andthe ACR and ABR.

At the international level, thereare, as you might expect, significantdifferences between the well-estab-lished nations and the emerging na-tions, which can make collabora-tion difficult. The needs of thesecountries require careful analysis,and the ACR has conducted needsassessment surveys to ensure ouraid is beneficial.

We have much to be proud of asACR members, but our work is not

done yet.

REFERENCES

1. Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration.

2. Patti JA. Planning for the future through in-tersociety collaboration, J Am Coll Radiol2011;8: 595.

3. Jani AB, Esiashvillli N, Cassels D, Godette K,Johnstone, PA. International Collaborations inRadiation Oncology: A single-institution expe-rience in academic outreach. J Am Coll Radiol2008;, 5:1001-1006.

4. Dodd III, GD. The Radiology Conglomer-ate: Optimizing the structure and functionof the 50-plus radiology organizations- a

summary of the 2010 Intersociety Confer-ence, J Am Coll Radiol 2011:8:539-42.

Paul H. Ellenbogen, MD, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, Department of Radiology, 8200 Walnut Hill Lane, Dallas,Texas 75231; e-mail: PLnbogen@gmail.com.