Bio

Clinical Focus


  • Diagnostic Radiology

Academic Appointments


Professional Education


  • Medical Education:Harvard Medical School (2008) MA
  • Fellowship:Massachusetts General HospitalMAUnited States of America
  • Board Certification: Pediatric Radiology, American Board of Radiology (2015)
  • Fellowship:Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine (2014) CAUnited States of America
  • Residency:Tufts Medical Center (2013) MAUnited States of America
  • Internship:Newton-Wellesley Hospital (2009) MAUnited States of America
  • Board Certification: Diagnostic Radiology, American Board of Radiology (2013)

Publications

All Publications


  • Hemodynamic safety and efficacy of ferumoxytol as an intravenous contrast agents in pediatric patients and young adults MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING Ning, P., Zucker, E. J., Wong, P., Vasanawala, S. S. 2016; 34 (2): 152-158
  • Added Value of Radiologist Consultation for Pediatric Ultrasound: Implementation and Survey Assessment AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY Zucker, E. J., Newman, B., Larson, D. B., Rubesova, E., Barth, R. A. 2015; 205 (4): 822-826

    Abstract

    The purpose of this study was to determine whether radiologist-parent (guardian) consultation sessions for pediatric ultrasound with immediate disclosure of examination results if desired increases visit satisfaction, decreases anxiety, and increases understanding of the radiologist's role.Parents chaperoning any outpatient pediatric ultrasound were eligible and completed surveys before and after ultrasound examinations. Before the second survey, parents met with a pediatric radiologist on a randomized basis but could opt out and request or decline the consultation. Differences in anxiety and understanding of the radiologist's role before and after the examination were compared, and overall visit satisfaction measures were tabulated.Seventy-seven subjects participated, 71 (92%) of whom spoke to a radiologist, mostly on request. In the consultation group, the mean score (1, lowest; 4, highest) for overall experience was 3.8 0.4 (SD), consultation benefit was 3.7 0.6, and radiologist interaction was 3.7 0.6. Demographics were not predictive of satisfaction with statistical significance in a multivariate model. Forty-six of 68 (68%) respondents correctly described the radiologist's role before consultation. The number increased to 60 (88%) after consultation, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was also a statistically significant decrease in mean anxiety score from 2.0 1.0 to 1.5 0.8 after consultation (p < 0.001). Sixty-four of 70 (91%) respondents indicated that they would prefer to speak with a radiologist during every visit.Radiologist consultation is well received among parents and associated with decreased anxiety and increased understanding of the radiologist's role. The results of this study support the value of routine radiologist-parent interaction for pediatric ultrasound.

    View details for DOI 10.2214/AJR.15.14542

    View details for Web of Science ID 000361847300033

    View details for PubMedID 26397331

  • Radiologist Compliance With California CT Dose Reporting Requirements: A Single-Center Review of Pediatric Chest CT AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY Zucker, E. J., Larson, D. B., Newman, B., Barth, R. A. 2015; 204 (4): 810-816

    Abstract

    Effective July 1, 2012, CT dose reporting became mandatory in California. We sought to assess radiologist compliance with this legislation and to determine areas for improvement.We retrospectively reviewed reports from all chest CT examinations performed at our institution from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013, for errors in documentation of volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), and phantom size. Reports were considered as legally compliant if both CTDIvol and DLP were documented accurately and as institutionally compliant if phantom size was also documented accurately. Additionally, we tracked reports that did not document dose in our standard format (phantom size, CTDIvol for each series, and total DLP).Radiologists omitted CTDIvol, DLP, or both in nine of 664 examinations (1.4%) and inaccurately reported one or both of them in 56 of the remaining 655 examinations (8.5%). Radiologists omitted phantom size in 11 of 664 examinations (1.7%) and inaccurately documented it in 20 of the remaining 653 examinations (3.1%). Of 664 examinations, 599 (90.2%) met legal reporting requirements, and 583 (87.8%) met institutional requirements. In reporting dose, radiologists variably used less decimal precision than available, summed CTDIvol, included only series-level DLP, and specified dose information from the scout topogram or a nonchest series for combination examinations.Our institutional processes, which primarily rely on correct human performance, do not ensure accurate dose reporting and are prone to variation in dose reporting format. In view of this finding, we are exploring higher-reliability processes, including better-defined standards and automated dose reporting systems, to improve compliance.

    View details for DOI 10.2214/AJR.14.13693

    View details for Web of Science ID 000351614700037

Footer Links:

Stanford Medicine Resources: