Search

Purpose: To investigate whether private practice interventional radiology (IR) groups self-report higher overall productivity given differing case mix and more diagnostic radiology interpretation., Materials and Methods: A 60-question survey was distributed to 3,159 self-identified US IR physicians via the Society of Interventional Radiologists member search engine, with 357 responses (11.3% response rate). Of these responses, there were 258 unique practices from 34 US states., Results: Out of 84 IR group responses, private practice IR (PPIR) physicians reported a minimal trend for higher annual work relative value units (wRVUs) per clinical full-time equivalent compared with academic IR physicians (8,000 versus 7,140, P = .202), but this did not reach statistical significance. PPIR groups reported fewer median weekly hours (50 versus 52), more frequent call (every 6 versus every 5 days), and significantly higher median tenured compensation ($573,000 versus $451,000, P = .000). Out of 179 responses, academic practices reported significantly higher case percentages of interventional oncology and complex hepatobiliary intervention (P <.001), and private practices reported significantly higher percentages of musculoskeletal intervention (P < .001) with a nonsignificant trend for stroke or neurologic intervention (P = .010). Private practices reported more wRVUs from the interpretation of diagnostic imaging, at 26% of total wRVU production compared with 7% of total wRVU production for academic practices (P < .001; n = 131)., Conclusions: Self-reported data from private and academic IR groups suggest minimally higher wRVUs per clinical full-time equivalent among PPIRs with lower weekly work hours, more frequent call, differing case mix, and significantly higher tenured compensation among PPIR groups., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The training experience in interventional radiology (IR) residency programs varies widely across the country. The introduction of an IR training pathway has provided the impetus for the specialty to better define outstanding IR education and for programs to rethink how their curricula prepare IR trainees for real-world practice. Although ACGME competencies define several training components that are necessary for independent practice, few quantitative or qualitative studies have explored current perceptions on what constitutes optimal IR training. Our goal was to qualitatively explore program training features deemed most important to adequately prepare IR physicians for practice and assess whether there were differences in perception between academic and nonacademic practices., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 71 IR attending physicians, trainees, and support staff across the United States. All interviews were performed over the telephone by a single researcher for consistency and systematically coded by two independent coders for common themes. Frequency and prevalence of themes and facilitating features were analyzed., Results: The most frequently perceived facilitating features included longitudinal patient care experience, practice-building education, interspecialty collaboration exposure, broad case mix, clinical decision-making exposure, diagnostic radiology training, procedural skills training, and graduated autonomy. Comparing nonacademic versus academic practice settings, significantly more nonacademic IR attending physicians expressed practice-building education (prevalence 72% versus 42%, frequency 2.2 versus 0.7, P < .01) as an important training experience., Discussion: An understanding of perceived facilitating features for optimal IR trainee preparation, including potentially different needs between academic and nonacademic practices, can help programs prepare their trainees for a successful transition into practice., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)