grand rounds and a visiting professorship program in a department of radiology

6
Grand Rounds and a Visiting Professorship Program in a Department of Radiology: How We Do It Srini Tridandapani, MD, PhD, Mark E. Mullins, MD, PhD, Carolyn C. Meltzer, MD, FACR We discuss the benefits of maintaining an active, rigorous, and highly structured grand rounds (GR) program in an academic radiology department. These benefits include education for faculty (continuing medical education), fellows, and residents and a venue for building collaboration and camaraderie within the department and institution, while also allowing for building ties with the radiology community at large. In addition, we illustrate how to build and sustain a dynamic GR program based on our collective 6-year experience in running such a program at our institution that has offered more than 180 GR and hosted more than 90 visiting professors during this period. Maintaining such a program requires infrastructure, financial support, careful planning, and considerable effort. We believe that this article can serve as a ‘‘how-to’’ guide or framework to initiate and maintain such a program. Key Words: Continuing medical education (CME); education; faculty; grand rounds; radiology resident; visiting professor. ªAUR, 2012 O ver the past 6 years (2006–2011), we have developed a rigorous and active grand rounds (GR) and visiting professor (VP) program in our academic radiology department. This has become an integral part of the educational programs in our department and GR are attended regularly by faculty and trainees, and on many occasions, by technologists, nurses, and nonclinical staff. Initiating and sustaining this pro- gram has required considerable thought and effort and we have learned many lessons in the process. We continue to streamline our program to make it more efficient and useful. The purpose of this article is to describe our experience in developing and implementing a consistent program and to encourage other departments to consider investing in such an educational pro- gram. We welcome feedback and shared wisdom from readers involved in running GR and VP programs at their departments. ORGANIZATION, CONTENT, AND RATIONALE We offer about 30 GR during the academic year, which extends from September through May. About 18 of these GR are presented by VPs from academic institutions around the country. We strive for a balanced representation of the 10 clinical subspecialty areas of radiology (Fig 1). It is not always possible to have an even distribution between these 10 areas, either because we do not have sufficient nominations for a certain area or we are unable to schedule the nominated speakers in a given year. Thus some areas may be dispropor- tionately represented in any given year, but we strive for a bal- ance over 2 to 3 years. There is an 11th area of interest, which does have more rep- resentation in any given year. This provides the ‘‘big picture’’ and involves knowledge relevant to our practice and profes- sion in general. Included in this group of GR is an annual lec- ture on sleep Deprivation–a requirement of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) (1). We also have a dedicated annual GR on ‘‘The State of the Depart- ment Address’’ by the chair, which is attended by a much broader segment of our department in addition to clinical and research personnel. There are other GR on radiology education, quality in clinical care, and ethics and professional- ism. In addition, each year, we try to identify gap areas of clin- ical and scientific knowledge in our department and target specific topics. Strategic Organization Our year-long program is divided into four tracks. 1. Building Foundations: In this track, speakers from within our department, including faculty and trainees, present their work. These GR have ranged from clinical to scien- tific discussions, but are generally basic lectures that are of Acad Radiol 2012; 19:1415–1420 From the Departments of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (S.T., M.E.M., C.C.M.), Neurology (M.E.M., C.C.M.), Neurosurgery (M.E.M.), and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (C.C.M.), Emory University, Atlanta, GA; School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology (S.T.), Atlanta, GA 30322. Received May 1, 2012; accepted August 7, 2012. Address correspondence to: S.T. e-mail: [email protected] ªAUR, 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2012.08.003 1415

Upload: carolyn-c

Post on 31-Dec-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Grand Rounds and a VisitingProfessorship Program in aDepartment of Radiology:

How We Do It

Srini Tridandapani, MD, PhD, Mark E. Mullins, MD, PhD, Carolyn C. Meltzer, MD, FACR

Ac

FrC.anElAtco

ªht

We discuss the benefits of maintaining an active, rigorous, and highly structured grand rounds (GR) program in an academic radiology

department. These benefits include education for faculty (continuing medical education), fellows, and residents and a venue for building

collaboration and camaraderie within the department and institution, while also allowing for building ties with the radiology community atlarge. In addition, we illustrate how to build and sustain a dynamic GR program based on our collective 6-year experience in running such a

program at our institution that has offered more than 180 GR and hosted more than 90 visiting professors during this period. Maintaining

such a program requires infrastructure, financial support, careful planning, and considerable effort. We believe that this article can serve as

a ‘‘how-to’’ guide or framework to initiate and maintain such a program.

Key Words: Continuing medical education (CME); education; faculty; grand rounds; radiology resident; visiting professor.

ªAUR, 2012

ver the past 6 years (2006–2011), we have developed a the country. We strive for a balanced representation of the

O rigorous and active grand rounds (GR) and visiting

professor (VP) program in our academic radiology

department. This has become an integral part of the educational

programs in our department and GR are attended regularly by

faculty and trainees, and on many occasions, by technologists,

nurses, and nonclinical staff. Initiating and sustaining this pro-

gram has required considerable thought and effort and we have

learned many lessons in the process. We continue to streamline

our program to make it more efficient and useful. The purpose

of this article is to describe our experience in developing and

implementing a consistent program and to encourage other

departments to consider investing in such an educational pro-

gram. We welcome feedback and shared wisdom from readers

involved in running GR and VP programs at their departments.

ORGANIZATION, CONTENT, AND RATIONALE

We offer about 30 GR during the academic year, which

extends from September through May. About 18 of these

GR are presented by VPs from academic institutions around

ad Radiol 2012; 19:1415–1420

om the Departments of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (S.T., M.E.M.,C.M.), Neurology (M.E.M., C.C.M.), Neurosurgery (M.E.M.), and Psychiatryd Behavioral Sciences (C.C.M.), Emory University, Atlanta, GA; School ofectrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology (S.T.),lanta, GA 30322. Received May 1, 2012; accepted August 7, 2012. Addressrrespondence to: S.T. e-mail: [email protected]

AUR, 2012tp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2012.08.003

10 clinical subspecialty areas of radiology (Fig 1). It is not

always possible to have an even distribution between these

10 areas, either because we do not have sufficient nominations

for a certain area or we are unable to schedule the nominated

speakers in a given year. Thus some areas may be dispropor-

tionately represented in any given year, but we strive for a bal-

ance over 2 to 3 years.

There is an 11th area of interest, which does have more rep-

resentation in any given year. This provides the ‘‘big picture’’

and involves knowledge relevant to our practice and profes-

sion in general. Included in this group of GR is an annual lec-

ture on sleep Deprivation–a requirement of the Accreditation

Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) (1). We

also have a dedicated annual GR on ‘‘The State of the Depart-

ment Address’’ by the chair, which is attended by a much

broader segment of our department in addition to clinical

and research personnel. There are other GR on radiology

education, quality in clinical care, and ethics and professional-

ism. In addition, each year, we try to identify gap areas of clin-

ical and scientific knowledge in our department and target

specific topics.

Strategic Organization

Our year-long program is divided into four tracks.

1. Building Foundations: In this track, speakers from within

our department, including faculty and trainees, present

their work. These GR have ranged from clinical to scien-

tific discussions, but are generally basic lectures that are of

1415

Figure 1. Grid depicting the conceptual organization of our grand

rounds series by discipline and track.

TRIDANDAPANI ET AL Academic Radiology, Vol 19, No 11, November 2012

relevance to a large subset of our radiologists. As a specific

example, we recently had ultrasonologists, neuroradiolo-

gists, and nuclear medicine specialists provide a series of

lectures on thyroid disease. Participation especially by

trainees and junior faculty helps build confidence and pre-

pares them for public speaking at larger venues such as na-

tional meetings.

2. Building Bridges: In this track, faculty colleagues from re-

ferring clinical departments at our institution present a

view of their clinical world and how imaging can assist

them with patient care. We have found this to be an effec-

tive way to build both clinical and research collaborations

between the speakers’ departments and ours. Some recent

speakers have included faculty from the divisions of surgi-

cal oncology, general surgery, and the departments of oto-

laryngology and emergency medicine.

3. Building Lookouts: This track is our clinical VP pro-

gram, which generally includes about 10 speakers. Clin-

ical radiologists from around the world give us their

perspective on the advances being made in clinical

radiology.

4. Building Skyscrapers:With about four speakers a year, this

is our distinguished speaker series, which consists of talks

provided by VPs who are distinguished scientists. These

talks are more forward-looking, and we encourage speak-

ers to speculate on the likely future course of imaging.

Example topics in the past few years include ‘‘Future of

Ultrasound Imaging,’’ ‘‘Re-engineering Radiology for

an Electronic and Flattened World: Radiology as Value

1416

Innovator,’’ and ‘‘Time-Resolved Digital Angiography:

Past, Present, and Future.’’

In addition to these four tracks, we have four named

lectures, either endowed or supported by the department,

and emphasizing the areas of neuroradiology, gastrointestinal

radiology, medical physics, and innovative applications of

imaging, not always related to medical imaging, and thus

not eligible for continuing medical education (CME) credit.

Content

Although we do not control the exact content of what GR

speakers discuss, we do provide program curriculum structure

by very carefully choosing the speakers. Nominations for both

internal and external speakers are solicited from the department

each year. From these nominations, the director of the GR and

VP program selects speakers with an aim to balance the content

among the various subspecialties. The named lectureship

speakers are selected by faculty committees after receiving

nominations from the department at large. Once a speaker

has accepted an invitation and a date is confirmed, we request

the speaker to provide us with a list of potential GR titles. We

then assist the VPs in selecting from this list based on the needs

and interests in our department, thus complementing and

enriching the training mission of our department.

Organizational Team

Organizing such an extensive program requires a well-

coordinated team. The team is headed by a junior faculty

member who requests and gathers nominations from the

department, invites speakers, and supervises the organization

for each VP’s visit. We have a program coordinator who

spends approximately one quarter of her effort on this pro-

gram. Her tasks include collating documents, ensuring com-

pliance with the CME office, coordinating with faculty in

drawing up the itinerary, and making hotel, restaurant, and

transportation reservations. Each VP has a faculty host, who

usually takes the VP to dinner and introduces the VP at

GR, and a resident host, who escorts the VP to the various

lectures and hosts a lunch. An events coordinator spends about

an hour each week in preparing informational flyers on the

GRs. Distinguished speakers and named lecturers are selected

by committees, which meet once a year.

Rationale

Some important reasons for an academic department to invest

in a strong GR program include CME for faculty and fellows,

building camaraderie within the department, building ties

with colleagues around the country, and recruitment of future

radiologists.

CME. Our GR program provides CME in the form of

approximately 30 American Medical Association Physician

Recognition Award–eligible Category 1 CreditsTM over the

Academic Radiology, Vol 19, No 11, November 2012 GRAND ROUNDS AND A VISITING PROFESSORSHIP PROGRAM

year. At a cost of $45,000, we are able to provide approximately

20 faculty members with up to 30 CME credits per year; thus,

such a program may be more cost-effective than most CME

meetings across the country, at least in terms of cost per

CME credit. The average (standard deviation) of clinical fac-

ulty attendance over 30 GR in our department for the 2010–

2011 academic year was 22 (+/�8). Thus it costs us �$75

per CME credit. This does not capture the benefit of providing

these outstanding lectures to residents, fellows, and medical

students. A sample of expense reports of five randomly selected

radiologists in our department showed an average cost of

�$2000 to attend a CME meeting within the United States.

Thus our faculty attending CME meetings out of town will

have to claim at least 26 credits at each meeting for these meet-

ings to be competitive with our GR program.

The 30 or more yearlyCMEcredits alone cover the require-

ments of most state medical licensing authorities. It satisfies the

current CME requirements for maintenance of certification

with the American Board of Radiology, which currently

requires 25 earned CME credits per calendar year (2).

Because academic radiologists do not usually attend outside

CME meetings that are outside their subspecialty, a well-

rounded GR program may provide them with CME experi-

ence that they may not otherwise experience. An added

benefit of our GR CME is that we retain copies of these

lectures on DVD and as podcasts for internal departmental

use, so anyone who missed a lecture is able to view it on their

own time.

Networking. Our GRs are preceded by a half-hour breakfast,

providing an opportunity for faculty, fellows, and residents

to meet informally. This chance to meet weekly would other-

wise not be available in a busy clinical department that serves

several hospitals. A carefully planned GR program can provide

a good venue for bringing together radiologists from the var-

ious subspecialties and sites. Furthermore, many of the GR are

often attended and given by faculty from other departments,

further enriching the experience.

In addition to internal networking, the VP program pro-

vides faculty and trainees with the opportunity to interact

with outstanding clinical radiologists and imaging scientists

from around the world. The benefits of such interactions are

incalculable. However, we must acknowledge that GR and

VP programs cannot entirely replace faculty/trainee attend-

ance at national meetings; the benefits of national meetings

include networking with a larger group and obtaining oppor-

tunities to speak at a national level.

Recruitment. Our GR are also attended by medical students,

particularly those enrolled in radiology clerkships, giving

our department a closer relationship with our medical school

and students. We believe it is important to project a positive

view of radiology so that students can consider a career in

our specialty.

The VP program has another potential recruitment benefit.

If VPs go back with positive thoughts about our institution,

they are more likely to encourage their trainees to consider

our institution for a career. On occasion, recruitment of a fac-

ulty member originated from exposure to the department

through the VP program.

We strongly believe in the benefits listed and thus the

department administration funds this program through the

research budget (for distinguished speakers) and education

budget for other speakers. Named lectures are funded partly

by endowment and partly by the department general funds.

GR PROGRAM TIMELINE

Careful advance planning is required to ensure a smooth pro-

gram. Our GR series extends from the beginning of Septem-

ber through the end of May. In general, VPs and distinguished

scientists are invited more than a year in advance, because it is

difficult to schedule VPs with shorter notice. We attempt to

do this one speaker at a time to avoid double-booking of

speakers.

Once the VP and distinguished scientist list for an academic

year is completed, the speakers for the Building Bridges and

Building Foundations series are scheduled; this generally

occurs just before the beginning of the fall academic semester

(September through December) and the spring semester

(January through May). Once the list of speakers for the

semester is completed, it is posted on our department website.

About 3 months before a GR, we ask that internal GR

speakers fill out a single form that gives us the following infor-

mation: details on the GR (title, learning objectives, and what

ACGME core competency the lecture will fulfill), signed dis-

closures including financial conflict of interest, and release

forms for taping the lecture for internal use. This allows us

to publish the titles for the upcoming month in our monthly

department newsletter. As a result, potential audience mem-

bers within and outside our department can plan their sched-

ules to attend lectures that are of interest to them. In addition,

a weekly e-mail reminder is sent on the departmental mailing

list with information on the upcoming week’s GR; generally,

this is in the form of a PDF flyer that includes the speaker’s

name, affiliation, picture, and a brief professional biography.

The two to three brief learning objectives provided by the

speakers are listed on the speaker evaluation sheet that audi-

ence members fill out at the end of the GR. These evaluation

sheets with the learning objectives are required by our institu-

tion’s CME office in order for the lecture to be eligible for

CME credit.

VP Timeline and Tasks

In addition to the tasks detailed in scheduling GR, the VP

schedule has several more tasks that need to be completed in

a timely manner. The form that VPs fill out is an expanded

one including a W-9 form to process their honorarium.

This expanded form also requests information on other lec-

tures that they may provide to the residents.

Along with the form, we remind the VPs about their

upcoming trip and encourage them to initiate travel plans

1417

TABLE 1. Typical Visiting Professor Schedule

Tuesday

1) Arrival in late morning/early afternoon

2) If time, consider an optional noon conference (12:15–1:15 pm)

3) Senior case review (4:00–6:00 pm)

4) Dinner with radiology faculty

Wednesday

1) Breakfast 7:00–7:30 am

2) Grand rounds and Q&A (7:30–8:30 am)

3) Meet with faculty (8:30–11:30)

4) Noon conference (12:15–1:15)

5) Lunch with residents (1:15–2:15)

6) Leave for airport

TRIDANDAPANI ET AL Academic Radiology, Vol 19, No 11, November 2012

by purchasing airline tickets. Once we obtain the flight sched-

ule, we begin the task of assembling the itinerary, which usu-

ally is a lengthy process because several people within our

institution need to be consulted. In general, the division

director of the subspecialty closely aligned with the VP’s

area of technical interest or the person who nominated the

VP plays the host, particularly for the VP dinner with faculty.

The typical VP schedule (Table 1) generally includes a case-

based review session with senior residents. This is followed by

dinner with radiology faculty where there is opportunity for

exchange of ideas and other beneficial interactions with the

VP. Some of our recent VPs have provided great mentorship

advice to junior faculty in our department. VPs also provide a

noon conference to the radiology residents and medical stu-

dents. Residents then get a chance to interact with the VPs

in an informal setting at lunch. A senior resident is also

assigned to escort each VP to and from meetings on campus

and also pick up the VP before the early morning GR. We

believe that these interactions are very important in allowing

our residents to get a perspective on academic life in radiology

and perhaps encourage them to consider careers in academic

radiology.

Breakdown of average costs for a VP to visit us is as follows:

airfare and ground transportation $500; honorarium ranging

from $500 to $1250, depending on number of lectures pro-

vided; hotel ranging from $150 to $350 depending on number

of nights and season; and meals $350.

ADMINSTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

As with other aspects of medical education, we have found

that an enormous amount of paperwork needs to be com-

pleted for compliance with our CME office requirements.

This is likely the case around the country and preplanning

can make the process simpler. Before the start of each aca-

demic year, we have to renew our application for CME par-

ticipation. At our institution, this involves filling out a

seven-page form. Two aspects of this form include the educa-

tional planning and the evaluation and improvement sections.

For the educational planning section, we are required to

perform a needs assessment, which enables us to ‘‘identify

and measure gaps between what is and what ought to be,’’

from which program goals and objectives can then be identi-

fied. For our CME office, the needs could be demonstrated

through any two of the following: survey of target audience,

minutes of departmental meetings, research findings, patient

1418

care audits/quality improvement data, review of board exami-

nations and/or recertification requirements, regulatory legis-

lative requirements, expert opinion from those in the field or

related medical societies, and technology updates. It is prob-

ably easiest to print off copies of the American Board of Radi-

ology maintenance of certification requirements to satisfy one

of these requirements (1); state medical licensure requirements

may also suffice. For one of our other requirements, we pro-

vided an expert opinion from Kruskal et al (3) who developed

a number of strategies for improving quality and performance

in radiology departments. One of the key strategies outlined

by Kruskal et al (3) is the use of educational components,

where they note that GR by departments of radiology elevate

the message about how highly a department’s leadership values

quality assurance. For good measure, we provided a third

need: for this year, we included findings by Neymayer et al

(4) who used the example of computed tomography scanning

in appendicitis and showed that discussion of a subject during

GR can affect practice patterns and outcomes.

Educational planning also requires identification of profes-

sional practice gaps, educational needs, learning objectives,

and desired results for the series as related to the educational

needs.

For evaluation and measurement, we use the standard eval-

uation form that is provided by our CME office for each GR.

All GR speakers are also required to fill out financial disclosure

forms and include a financial disclosures slide in their

presentation.

There are other forms of paperwork involved, particularly

related to the VP expenses. To comply with tax regulations,

two checks are usually produced for our VPs, one for travel

expenses (reimbursement) and one for an honorarium. Pay-

ment procedures in academic institutions can involve unfore-

seen delays, leading to delayed reimbursements. This year we

have instituted two approaches: we obtain the VP’sW-9 forms

about 6 weeks before the planned visit and process the hono-

rarium check in advance so that the check is available at the

time of the visit and we minimize the VP’s out-of-pocket

expenses by having airline tickets and hotel expenses directly

billed to our department.

TECHNIQUES TO ENCOURAGE ATTENDANCE

Increasing GR attendance is a constant challenge (5). We have

employed several strategies to address this.

Academic Radiology, Vol 19, No 11, November 2012 GRAND ROUNDS AND A VISITING PROFESSORSHIP PROGRAM

Build a Routine

Our rationale for having weekly GR was to instill a routine in

our attendees. Although a much sparser program may be eas-

ier to coordinate, we believe that a weekly program increases

attendance.We have no strong scientific method of measuring

this because it is unlikely that we will reduce the number of

GR at this time. But departments considering a new GR pro-

gram, or interested in ramping up an existing program, may

find it beneficial to monitor attendance as the number of

GR slots increase; we would be very interested in learning

from this experiment.

Food

Food encourages attendance, particularly by trainees. Segovis

et al (6) concluded through a prospective study that compli-

mentary food may be an effective strategy for increasing

attendance at medical GR. Careful thought has gone toward

ensuring that the GR breakfast menu included mainly healthy

options.

Advertising

As discussed earlier in the timeline section, we have a stream-

lined method of advertising the semester’s schedule, the

upcoming month’s schedule, and the upcoming week’s sched-

ule. This allows attendees to better plan for and attend GR.

Faculty Incentive Plan

Faculty GR attendance is a component of our department’s

faculty incentive. The department administration recently

approved publishing quarterly divisional attendance at GR.

It is hoped that this will increase faculty attendance at GR.

A consistent challenge is to get audience members to sit up

front. When all audience members sit at the rear, this may

reduce the speaker’s energy level. Some institutions tackle

this issue by strategically placing the refreshments and sign-

in sheets in the front of the auditorium, but this is not always

possible depending on the auditorium layout.

Another way of ensuring that the speaker is energized is to

provide a laudatory introduction of the VP before the GR (7);

it is best to choose someone in the department who admires

the VP’s work (and perhaps the person who nominated the

VP) to provide the introduction.

Another challenge that we facewith keeping the roomfilled

is that our GR are webcast to four affiliated hospitals. Room

selection thus can have a significant impact in the perception

the VP has of the audience interest in his/her presentation.

LESSONS LEARNED AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on our experience, we offer the following tips to make a

GR and VP program successful.

1. Plan the program at least a year in advance. It is easier

to get speakers to commit far in advance than it is to

get them to commit for the next week or month.

Likewise, having a schedule months in advance in-

creases attendance. We suggest scheduling VPs on a

2-year cycle. This should improve chances to book

‘‘famous’’ VPs, presumably in high demand for their

services.

2. Keep the lines of communication open within the de-

partment. When VPs are visiting, the subspecialty divi-

sion aligned with the VP’s area of interest should be

given advance notice of at least 8 weeks. This will ensure

that a reasonable number of faculty members from that

division will be able to attend GR and to meet with

the VP.

� Corollary 1: Grow a thick skin. You will never be able

to please everyone in the department with the choice of

speakers or the amount of time you give them to pre-

pare for a visit.

� Corollary 2: Make full use of shared electronic calen-

dars. In our department all information pertaining to

a GR or VP is stored on a shared calendar and everyone

involved with organizing the event can obtain a quick

snapshot of tasks to be done to keep the program on

track.

3. Keep the lines of communication open with the VP. VPs

have to send several pieces of information in order for the

program to be put together successfully. Such informa-

tion includes: GR title, biosketch and picture for adver-

tising, learning objectives for CME office compliance, a

biosketch for a proper introduction, flight information

for a solid itinerary, any dietary restrictions, and names

of people the VP wants to meet with during the visit.

Realize that VPs are incredibly busy, and many of these

may slip through the cracks. It helps to send concurrent

copies of email to the VPs and to their administrative as-

sistants, who can be very useful in keeping the VPs on

schedule.

� Corollary 1: Enlist the help of senior faculty in the de-

partment who may know the VP. These faculty mem-

bers can add the personal touch during the invitation

process and assist with gently reminding VPs to send

in the required documentation. Furthermore, these se-

nior faculty members can provide great introductions to

the VPs at the GR.

4. Ensure that you have consistent technical support for the

GR, especially if the talk is to be webcast to other sites.

Although all of our GR are held in the main university

hospital, we webcast to four hospitals affiliated with our

institution. In our case, we need to know a few days in ad-

vance if the speaker is planning on using a MAC versus a

PC, and if they plan on using any multimedia tools for

their presentation.

In summary, we find the GR and VP programs a

rewarding part of the educational program in our depart-

ment, even though it costs time, effort, and money. We

continue to make improvements to make the process a

1419

TRIDANDAPANI ET AL Academic Radiology, Vol 19, No 11, November 2012

smooth one. With careful planning, we feel that all aca-

demic radiology departments can enjoy a similar

program.

REFERENCES

1. ACGME Task Force on Quality Care and Professionalism: Process for

Developing Recommendations on new Supervision and Resident Duty

Hour Standards. http://acgme-2010standards.org/pdf/Impact_Statement.

pdf. Accessed February 6, 2012.

2. American Board of Radiology MOC. http://www.theabr.org/moc/moc_dr_

landing.html. Accessed February 6, 2012.

1420

3. Kruskal JB, Anderson S, Yam CS, et al. Strategies for establishing a com-

prehensive quality and performance program in a radiology department.

RadioGraphics 2009; 29:325–329.

4. Neymayer L, Wako E, Fergestaad J, et al. Impact of journal articles and

grand rounds on practice: CT scanning in appendicitis. J Gastrointestinal

Surg 2002; 6:338–341.

5. Mueller PS, Litin SC, SowdenML, et al. Strategies for improving attendance

at medical grand rounds at an academic medical center. Mayo Clin Proc

2003; 78:549–553.

6. Segovis CM, Mueller PS, Rethlefsen ML, et al. If you feed them, they will

come: a prospective study of the effects of complimentary food on attend-

ance and physician attitudes at medical grand rounds at an academic med-

ical center. Br Med Educ 2007; 7:22.

7. Levine MS. The visiting professorship: to Fargo and beyond. Acad Radiol

2010; 17:808–809.