Perceived Barriers to the Use of High-Fidelity Hands-On Simulation Training for Contrast Reaction Management: Why Programs are Not Using It

Although subjective and objective benefits of high-fidelity simulation have been reported in medicine, there has been slow adoption in radiology. The purpose of our study was to identify the perceived barriers in the use of high-fidelity hands-on simulation for contrast reaction management training. An IRB exempt 32 questions online web survey was sent to 179 non-military radiology residency program directors listed in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access system (FREIDA). Survey questions included the type of contrast reaction management training, cost, time commitment of residents and faculty, and the reasons for not using simulation training. Responses from the survey were summarized as count (percentage), mean ± standard deviation (SD), or median (range). 84 (47%) of 179 programs responded, of which 88% offered CRM training. Most (72%) conducted the CRM training annually while only 4% conducted it more frequently. Didactic lecture was the most frequently used training modality (97%), followed by HFS (30%) and computer-based simulation (CBS) (19%); 5.5% used both HFS and CBS. Of the 51 programs that offer CRM training but do not use HFS, the most common reason reported was insufficient availability (41%). Other reported reasons included cost (33%), no access to simulation centers (33%), lack of trained faculty (27%) and time constraints (27%). Although high-fidelity hands-on simulation training is the best way to reproduce real-life contrast reaction scenarios, many institutions do not provide this training due to constraints such as cost, lack of access or insufficient availability of simulation labs, and lack of trained faculty. As a specialty, radiology needs to better address these barriers at both an institutional and national level.