The mandatory MRI safety training was well received and led to measurable improvements in both subjective confidence and objective performance on safety-related tasks. These results support the effectiveness of a structured, formal educational intervention in addressing identified knowledge gaps in radiologist MRI safety preparedness. Longitudinal follow-up with yearly training and assessment, will hopefully only further interventional efficacy.

Importantly, the A3 methodology provided a clear and efficient framework for identifying root causes, selecting high-impact interventions, and implementing change in a complex healthcare environment. By combining root cause analysis, stakeholder input, and decision tools such as the effort-impact matrix, we were able to prioritize a sustainable solution that balanced educational burden with clinical benefit. This structured approach may serve as a model for other radiology departments or academic institutions facing similar challenges in safety education or professional development.

MRI safety is a highly nuanced and evolving area, particularly as device technology advances and patient complexity increases. Despite its critical nature, MRI safety education often remains inconsistent or informal across training programs. Our internal survey data—where 39% of radiologists reported a lack of confidence in MRI safety decision-making—highlights the extent of this educational gap even among experienced clinicians. Moreover, the 78% of respondents seeking further guidance reflects a strong demand for structured, continuing education in this area.

While institutional results are promising, this was single institution implementation, which may limit the generalizability of the results. Institutional culture, resources, and baseline safety practices can vary significantly across settings, potentially influencing both the implementation process and outcomes. As such, multicenter validation is recommended to establish the efficacy of structured MRI safety education across diverse practice environments.

Given the universal role radiologists play in MRI safety oversight—and the increasing complexity of implantable devices—it is reasonable to suspect that similar knowledge gaps exist at many other institutions. As such, national or specialty-wide efforts to standardize MRI safety training, including integration into maintenance of certification (MOC) programs or ACR-endorsed CME, could further elevate safety standards across the field.

In conclusion, targeted, structured MRI safety education using quality improvement methodologies such as A3 analysis can significantly enhance radiologist preparedness and institutional safety culture. As MRI utilization continues to rise, ensuring that radiologists possess up-to-date, evidence-based safety knowledge is not only essential but also actionable through thoughtful and scalable interventions.