Nuclear Medicine Training: Two Different Pathways?

Biersack, H.-J.

doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.210401

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It appears that different positions concerning these questions depend to a certain degree on the individual background with the line of disagreement frequently running along the interface of radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists [6]. This may come as a surprise in light of existing statements and guidelines by the respective professional associations that demonstrate a high degree of a priori agreement on the central aspects of hybrid imaging [7, 8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of affairs of hybrid imaging in Europe: two multi-national surveys from 2017

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the current state of hybrid imaging in Europe with respect to operations, reading and reporting, as well as qualification and training. Methods The first survey (LOCAL) was sent to the heads of the departments of radiology and nuclear medicine in Europe in 2017, including 15 questions regarding the organisation of hybrid imaging operations, reporting strategies for PET/CT and the existence of relevant training programmes. The second survey (NATIONAL) consisted of 10 questions and was directed to the national ministries of health of 37 European countries addressing combined training options in radiology and nuclear medicine. Results In the LOCAL survey, 61 valid responses from 26 European countries were received. In almost half of the institutions, hybrid imaging was performed within a single department, mainly in nuclear medicine departments (31%). In half of the centres (51%), PET/CT reports were performed jointly, while in 20% of the centres, reporting was performed by nuclear medicine physicians. Radiologists were responsible for presenting hybrid imaging results in clinical boards in 34% of responding sites. Integrated hybrid imaging training was available in 41% sites. In the NATIONAL survey, responses from 34 countries were received and demonstrated a heterogeneous landscape of official training possibilities in radiology and nuclear medicine with limited opportunities for additional qualifications in hybrid imaging. Conclusions The results of these surveys demonstrate a notable heterogeneity in the current practice of hybrid imaging throughout Europe. This heterogeneity exists despite the general consensus that strong professional cooperation is required in order to ensure high clinical quality and to strengthen the clinical role of hybrid imaging.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%