Breast Imaging Staffing Shortages: Defining the Problem and Addressing Root Causes
Access to this document is restricted. Some items have been embargoed at the request of the author, but will be made publicly available after the "No Access Until" date.
During the embargo period, you may request access to the item by clicking the link to the restricted file(s) and completing the request form. If we have contact information for a Cornell author, we will contact the author and request permission to provide access. If we do not have contact information for a Cornell author, or the author denies or does not respond to our inquiry, we will not be able to provide access. For more information, review our policies for restricted content.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the current perceptions of breast imaging staffing shortages and contributing factors among breast imaging radiologists. METHODS: A survey assessing current perception of breast radiologists regarding breast imaging-specific staffing shortages and contributing factors was developed by the Patient Care and Delivery Committee of the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) and emailed to SBI active physician members. Bivariable analysis (chi-squared, t test) was performed between the survey demographics and survey response questions of interest. RESULTS: There were 309 responses (response rate of 15.7%). Most respondents perceived their practices to be short-staffed for breast radiologists (79%, 239/302), US technologists (74%, 216/290), mammography technologists (70%, 211/301), and support staff (66%, 201/302). Of the respondents who indicated they were short-staffed for breast imaging radiologists, 92% (226/246) believed it was due to insufficient number of radiologists, 67% (164/246) thought it was due to increase in volume, and 63% (154/246) attributed it to both increase in volume and insufficient number of breast imaging radiologists. Practices were more likely to be short-staffed if they had more practice sites (mean, 8.2 ± 7.1 vs 6.4 ± 8.4; P = .002), had fewer breast imaging radiologists (mean, 10.1 ± 9.6 vs 11.3 ± 11.5; P = .009), and were academic practices (35.1% vs 25.7%; P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: Most breast imaging radiologists perceive their current breast imaging practices to be short-staffed for radiologists, mammography technologists, US technologists, and support staff. Understanding contributing factors is crucial to addressing root causes and mitigating impact on patient care and burnout across breast imaging team members.