Introduction
Medical simulation, specifically in radiology, involves four facets. The original intent was for quality assurance and patient safety. More recently, the ability to practice image-guided interventions and modality-specific hands-on experience in diagnostic imaging has advanced the role medical simulation plays in residency programs as well as training for advanced practice professionals and medical students.
Function
Register For Free And Read The Full Article
- Search engine and full access to all medical articles
- 10 free questions in your specialty
- Free CME/CE Activities
- Free daily question in your email
- Save favorite articles to your dashboard
- Emails offering discounts
Learn more about a Subscription to StatPearls Point-of-Care
Function
This review article intends to provide both background and supposition as to the utility of simulation, as it pertains to both diagnostic and interventional radiology.
Curriculum Development
Simulation in Quality Assurance & Patient Safety
It has been a long-standing practice to use anatomic substitutes, or phantoms when performing mandated quality assurance tests with cross-sectional modalities such as computed tomography (CT) as well as with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This is meant to ensure patient exposure to harmful ionizing radiation, and radiofrequency energy deposition falls within allowable limits while maintaining acceptable image quality.
A crucial component of cross-sectional imaging is the addition of intravenous contrast in the forms of organic compound bound iodine with CT, or gadolinium as is the case with MRI. Unfortunately, the IV administration of such compounds presents the potential for serious and, at times, potentially-fatal allergic reactions which radiology departments must be equipped to handle. As physicians in training, most residency programs require proficiency in basic and advanced life support (BLS/ACLS). Also, diagnostic radiology residents must receive education specific to the management of contrast-related allergic reactions.[1]
This situation provides the first, albeit foundational, opportunity for simulation. Mock imaging environments can be created with the use of pre-existing equipment or in a laboratory setting to provide a comprehensive education for radiology residents on how to approach acute emergencies, including contrast reactions, but also more broad skills such as placement of electrocardiography leads among others.[2] This type of training has shown not only to be useful to residents in training but also for fellows and even senior faculty, providing an avenue for life long learning. The frequency of such a refresher course has been suggested to be biannual rather than once a year.[3]
Simulation in Teaching Image-Guided Intervention
Perhaps the most fertile ground for simulated experience has been in the realm of procedures requiring image-guidance. There is an ever-growing weight placed on patient safety, and training programs must provide avenues for attaining proficiency without unnecessarily patient harm. Hands-on workshops have become more popular and have been made available at earlier training levels.[4] This evolution of the classic ‘master-and-apprentice’ model has had the added benefit of providing a more objective reproducible learning experience, in addition to alleviating some of the burden incurred by faculty having to serve an ever-increasing clinical burden.[5]
Given the full breadth of image-related procedures, it seems only logical to start with the more rudimentary modalities usually introduced in the early years of residency utilizing X-rays. Real-time fluoroscopy is not only used in diagnostics of the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts but also in needle placement with arthrography and the intrathecal sampling of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The main drawback of fluoroscopy would be the exposure of ionizing radiation, so one of the goals and achievements of simulation has been the quantifiable dose reduction after simulated training with phantoms[6]. An analogous modality would be fluoroscopic CT when performing cross-sectional needle placement for biopsies and drain placements. This more advanced technology has also shown to benefit from the introduction of simulation, leading to truncated total procedural time as well as dose reduction.[7][8] Perhaps the most advanced fluoroscopic technique would be digital subtracted angiography, which requires the utmost operator confidence, as the complications carry a more significant consequence. We find yet again that simulation exercises have led to a reduction of catheter misplacements in addition to a shortened overall procedural time.[9]
The ultrasound would be the next modality to which radiology resident procedural education would center around. It is safe, cost-efficient, and portable similar to C-arm fluoroscopy, however without necessitating additional safety equipment such as leaded aprons or goggles. Tissue characterization is also superior to x-ray based modalities. This allows for the identification of small abnormalities within superficial organs such as the thyroid or breast, as well as to deeper viscera such as the liver and kidney. While non-biologic phantoms offer the benefit of being reusable, they do have a limited immersion factor when it comes to simulating realistic tissue resistance.[10] More creative solutions have been offered depending on the model organ, such as the use of poultry breasts substituting for human breast and muscle.[11] A more specific simulation model is required for the replication of human-like viscera such as the liver given its characteristic anatomy, so porcine and even bovine analogs have been implemented with measurable success.[12]
Clinical productivity is frequently at odds with resident training. Given increasing volumes, the clinical landscape has drastically changed in recent times, specifically with the welcome addition of advanced practice professionals (APP) to assist in optimizing faculty efficiency. A radiological APP may have specific training in an imaging modality with more advanced procedural training as with the radiology assistant (RA), but more often, physician assistants (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP) have also found the field of radiology to be professionally rewarding and intriguing. While APP’s may not have identical backgrounds in the basic sciences as resident physicians, simulation-based training has demonstrated to be still quite helpful when focused on procedural education.[13]
Simulation in Training of Diagnostic Imaging
The thrust of radiology training mostly focuses on the interpretation of diagnostic imaging. Skills in optimizing image quality and acquisition are, however, crucial in providing an acceptable final image suitable for interpretation and are frequently overlooked. While this task is mainly delegated to modality-specific technologists, the radiologist is viewed as the one ultimately responsible for image-quality. As such, all radiologists need to demonstrate a level of familiarity with the acquisition as it pertains to troubleshooting artifacts and optimizing clarity. No other imaging modality is as operator-dependent as ultrasound. The sonographic field-of-view is variable, and the imaging window can be affected by a variety of medical states (NPO, intubated, etc.).
A larger body habitus can have a profound effect on the acoustic window and limit utility. One of the most essential and most frequently performed diagnostic imaging tests is the transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS). It is critical in the assessment of abdominopelvic pain in the female patient, whether pregnant or not, and can diagnose various life- or organ-threatening pathology. It is also able to assess for diagnoses for which there are not ideal modality-alternatives. It is because of all these reasons that TVUS is the prime candidate for simulation education, especially before residents taking overnight call.[14][15]
Simulation training has been compared directly to conventional education models, including slide and video presentations, but the addition of virtual reality and haptic feedback further enhances the education benefit, albeit at the cost of specialized equipment that may not be widely available.[16] Perhaps one of the most fundamental diagnostic skill is in the interpretation of chest radiography. Training modules exist for teaching the basics of X-ray interpretation that have proven useful even when applied to non-radiology residents.[17]
While computer-aided detection (CAD) has existed now for decades, it has had limited utility and has mainly been reserved for identifying abnormalities in screening mammography and screening lung CT. Artificial intelligence (AI) has future potential in aiding diagnosis on more complex modalities, but presently human perception remains the mainstay for imaging diagnosis. Even in scenarios where AI provides an initial report, human oversight over the final diagnosis will remain essential. Currently, physicians in training, as well as established faculty, suffer from an overall lack of experience with newer applications of AI. This is a potential area where simulation modules can assist in the future.
Clinical Significance
Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology are essential services in hospitals providing specialized and community care at all levels. Simulation offers the opportunity to improve patient safety, reduce exposure to ionizing radiation, accelerate the competence of trainees, and mitigate internal and system-wide costs.
Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes
One of the take-home points of this review has been that simulation can be utilized not only in the education of procedural skills but also in the acquisition and interpretation of diagnostic images.[18][19] Given that radiology makes use of specialized and costly equipment, the implementation of high-fidelity simulation requires a heavy investment by many layers of administration.[20] One of these essential costs should be protected time for faculty participation and oversight, as they are essential in the learning process.[21] It bears mentioning that these investments are not without downstream fiscal benefit. Simulation leads to many improvements, the utmost being improved patient safety, and reduced procedural time, allowing for optimization for billable services.
References
Coupal TM, Buckley AR, Bhalla S, Li JL, Ho SGF, Holmes A, Harris AC. Management of Acute Contrast Reactions-Understanding Radiologists' Preparedness and the Efficacy of Simulation-Based Training in Canada. Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes. 2018 Nov:69(4):349-355. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2018.05.003. Epub 2018 Sep 20 [PubMed PMID: 30245005]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceSarwani N, Tappouni R, Flemming D. Use of a simulation laboratory to train radiology residents in the management of acute radiologic emergencies. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2012 Aug:199(2):244-51. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7892. Epub [PubMed PMID: 22826384]
Pfeifer K, Staib L, Arango J, Kirsch J, Arici M, Kappus L, Pahade J. High-Fidelity Contrast Reaction Simulation Training: Performance Comparison of Faculty, Fellows, and Residents. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2016 Jan:13(1):81-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2015.08.016. Epub 2015 Nov 6 [PubMed PMID: 26549266]
Matalon SA,Chikarmane SA,Yeh ED,Smith SE,Mayo-Smith WW,Giess CS, Variability in the Use of Simulation for Procedural Training in Radiology Residency: Opportunities for Improvement. Current problems in diagnostic radiology. 2019 May - Jun; [PubMed PMID: 29656883]
Miller ZA, Amin A, Tu J, Echenique A, Winokur RS. Simulation-based Training for Interventional Radiology and Opportunities for Improving the Educational Paradigm. Techniques in vascular and interventional radiology. 2019 Mar:22(1):35-40. doi: 10.1053/j.tvir.2018.10.008. Epub 2018 Nov 2 [PubMed PMID: 30765075]
Faulkner AR, Bourgeois AC, Bradley YC, Hudson KB, Heidel RE, Pasciak AS. Simulation-based educational curriculum for fluoroscopically guided lumbar puncture improves operator confidence and reduces patient dose. Academic radiology. 2015 May:22(5):668-73. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.12.024. Epub [PubMed PMID: 25863793]
Mendiratta-Lala M, Williams TR, Mendiratta V, Ahmed H, Bonnett JW. Simulation center training as a means to improve resident performance in percutaneous noncontinuous CT-guided fluoroscopic procedures with dose reduction. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2015 Apr:204(4):W376-83. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13420. Epub [PubMed PMID: 25794086]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidencePicard M, Nelson R, Roebel J, Collins H, Anderson MB. Use of Low-Fidelity Simulation Laboratory Training for Teaching Radiology Residents CT-Guided Procedures. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2016 Nov:13(11):1363-1368. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.05.025. Epub 2016 Jul 16 [PubMed PMID: 27435881]
Powell DK, Jamison DK, Silberzweig JE. An endovascular simulation exercise among radiology residents: comparison of simulation performance with and without practice. Clinical imaging. 2015 Nov-Dec:39(6):1080-5. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.08.013. Epub 2015 Aug 28 [PubMed PMID: 26385172]
Browne JE, Gu C, Fazzio RT, Fagan AJ, Tradup DJ, Hangiandreou NJ. Use of Novel Anthropomorphic Breast Ultrasound Phantoms for Radiology Resident Education. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2019 Feb:16(2):211-218. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.08.028. Epub 2018 Nov 6 [PubMed PMID: 30409561]
Meng K, Lipson JA. Utilizing a PACS-integrated ultrasound-guided breast biopsy simulation exercise to reinforce the ACR practice guideline for ultrasound-guided percutaneous breast interventional procedures during radiology residency. Academic radiology. 2011 Oct:18(10):1324-8. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.06.003. Epub [PubMed PMID: 21893299]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceSekhar A,Sun MR,Siewert B, A tissue phantom model for training residents in ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. Academic radiology. 2014 Jul [PubMed PMID: 24928159]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceEchenique A, Wempe EP. Simulation-Based Training of the Nurse Practitioner in Interventional Radiology. Techniques in vascular and interventional radiology. 2019 Mar:22(1):26-31. doi: 10.1053/j.tvir.2018.10.006. Epub 2018 Nov 2 [PubMed PMID: 30765072]
Monsky WL, Levine D, Mehta TS, Kane RA, Ziv A, Kennedy B, Nisenbaum H. Using a sonographic simulator to assess residents before overnight call. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2002 Jan:178(1):35-9 [PubMed PMID: 11756082]
Ahmad R, Alhashmi G, Ajlan A, Eldeek B. Impact of high-fidelity transvaginal ultrasound simulation for radiology on residents' performance and satisfaction. Academic radiology. 2015 Feb:22(2):234-9. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.006. Epub 2014 Oct 18 [PubMed PMID: 25444893]
Chao C,Chalouhi GE,Bouhanna P,Ville Y,Dommergues M, Randomized Clinical Trial of Virtual Reality Simulation Training for Transvaginal Gynecologic Ultrasound Skills. Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2015 Sep [PubMed PMID: 26283753]
Level 1 (high-level) evidenceAuffermann WF, Henry TS, Little BP, Tigges S, Tridandapani S. Simulation for Teaching and Assessment of Nodule Perception on Chest Radiography in Nonradiology Health Care Trainees. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2015 Nov:12(11):1215-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2015.07.014. Epub 2015 Sep 28 [PubMed PMID: 26421854]
Mirza S, Athreya S. Review of Simulation Training in Interventional Radiology. Academic radiology. 2018 Apr:25(4):529-539. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.10.009. Epub 2017 Dec 6 [PubMed PMID: 29221857]
Chetlen AL, Mendiratta-Lala M, Probyn L, Auffermann WF, DeBenedectis CM, Marko J, Pua BB, Sato TS, Little BP, Dell CM, Sarkany D, Gettle LM. Conventional Medical Education and the History of Simulation in Radiology. Academic radiology. 2015 Oct:22(10):1252-67. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.07.003. Epub 2015 Aug 12 [PubMed PMID: 26276167]
Mandal I, Ojha U. Training in Interventional Radiology: A Simulation-Based Approach. Journal of medical education and curricular development. 2020 Jan-Dec:7():2382120520912744. doi: 10.1177/2382120520912744. Epub 2020 Apr 13 [PubMed PMID: 32313840]
Cook TS, Hernandez J, Scanlon M, Langlotz C, Li CD. Why Isn't There More High-fidelity Simulation Training in Diagnostic Radiology? Results of a Survey of Academic Radiologists. Academic radiology. 2016 Jul:23(7):870-6. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.03.008. Epub 2016 May 17 [PubMed PMID: 27212606]
Level 3 (low-level) evidence