Disclosure of the Resident Role in the Interventional Radiology Suite: How Do Interventional Radiologists Balance Patient Care and Resident Education?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study sought to assess how academic interventional radiologists determine and disclose to patients the intraprocedural role of radiology residents in the interventional radiology (IR) suite. METHODS: A qualitative study consisting of in-person interviews with 9 academic interventional radiologists from 3 hospitals was conducted. Interviews were transcribed, and underwent modified thematic analysis. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged. 1) Interventional radiologists permit residents to perform increasingly complex procedures with graded responsibility. While observed technical ability is important in determining the extent of resident participation, possessing good judgement and knowing personal limitations are paramount. 2) Interventional radiologists do not explicitly inform patients in detail about residents' intraprocedural role, as trainee involvement is viewed as implicit at academic institutions. 3) While patients are advised of resident participation in IR procedures, detailed disclosure of their role is viewed as potentially detrimental to both patient well-being and trainee education. 4) Interventional radiologists believe that patients might be less likely to refuse resident involvement if they meet them prior to procedures. 5) While it is rare that patients refuse resident participation in their care, interventional radiologists' duty to respect patient autonomy supersedes their obligation to resident education. 6) Interventional radiologists are responsible for any intraprocedural, trainee-related complication. 7) Trainees should be present when complications are disclosed to patients. CONCLUSION: Interventional radiologists recognize the confidence placed in them, and they do not inform patients in detail about residents' role in IR procedures. Respecting patient autonomy is paramount, and while rare, obeying patients' wishes can potentially be at the expense of resident education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".