Radiology Lifestyle questions

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Can someone talk about the number of hours worked on weeks on? How many days in a week ? What do the shifts look like? What does call look like?

Is income underrepresented by doctors who report income while in the buyin period of partnerships?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Can someone talk about the number of hours worked on weeks on? How many days in a week ? What do the shifts look like? What does call look like?

Is income underrepresented by doctors who report income while in the buyin period of partnerships?
If you want to know what starting salaries look like, that has its own section in the MGMA databook. I can PM anyone interested in knowing specifics
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
It's pretty fascinating that the average DR scores are so high (and the mode is actually 250+) when it's got such generous match rates at the low end. As opposed to the small fields where scores are elevated by competitive pressure, it seems like DR just attracts people who really enjoyed doing all that preclinical studying.

Good point about being hard to imagine yourself doing rads until you get there, though. I loved reviewing imaging on my medicine rounds but watching other people review it for 8 hours/day is probably just as bad as sitting through 40 patients in ophtho and derm clinics.

It’s really because radiology has so many spots. 1100, plus another 100 if you count IR. That’s a lot of spots to fill.

Compare to Derm 470, Neurosurgery 230, Ortho 750, ENT 330, Urology 240.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Members don't see this ad :)
It’s really because radiology has so many spots. 1100, plus another 100 if you count IR. That’s a lot of spots to fill.

Compare to Derm 470, Neurosurgery 230, Ortho 750, ENT 330, Urology 240.
I mentally kind of lump the surgical subspecialties together, in which case they significantly outnumber. Just seems weird to me that so many competitive applicants want to put themselves through the hell of surgical residency and deal with all the patient-associated BS, deal with equally bad evening/weekend workloads, to make similar $$ to the guys chilling in the reading room. Stereotypes aside, those ~1000 ortho applicants per year are a smart bunch, it just doesn't compute that they love hammering on bones enough to put themselves through all those negatives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I dunno man, the other reasons presented like not being prestigious enough or not having enough exposure in MS3 are weak too. It's not like laypersons or other docs think highly of Derm as a field. Essentially none of the competitive niche surgical specialties are part of people's core rotations. I may just be a cynic, but I also don't think there's a shortage of students who would love to say goodbye forever to inpatient care.

Feels like there's still some reason I'm missing for people not to go into rads.
TBH, it’s the length of training for me. Six years is just too long for me. I was stuck between derm vs. rads for the longest time. Deep down I’m more interested in rads and know I’d enjoy it more, but I also know I will enjoy derm and the shorter residency makes it more appealing to me. If rads was a 4 year residency like derm, it’d be my #1 choice for sure. I know an additional 2 years isn’t much in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll be 30 when I finish med school and not being done with a rads residency + “required” fellowship at the age of 36 is what discourages me. That may not seem old to many people, but to me it does. It’s probably a lame excuse for not pursuing rads but it’s truly the only one I’ve got.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
TBH, it’s the length of training for me. Six years is just too long for me. I was stuck between derm vs. rads for the longest time. Deep down I’m more interested in rads and know I’d enjoy it more, but I also know I will enjoy derm and the shorter residency makes it more appealing to me. If rads was a 4 year residency like derm, it’d be my #1 choice for sure. I know an additional 2 years isn’t much in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll be 30 when I finish med school and not being done with a rads residency + “required” fellowship at the age of 36 is what discourages me. That may not seem old to many people, but to me it does. It’s probably a lame excuse for not pursuing rads but it’s truly the only one I’ve got.
Interesting, I always figured 1 or 2 more years of training was worth it to tolerate my daily job of 20+ years better. Are you a FIRE by 50 type? Otherwise I think you're an outlier for choosing your specialty off of 1-2 years difference!
 
TBH, it’s the length of training for me. Six years is just too long for me. I was stuck between derm vs. rads for the longest time. Deep down I’m more interested in rads and know I’d enjoy it more, but I also know I will enjoy derm and the shorter residency makes it more appealing to me. If rads was a 4 year residency like derm, it’d be my #1 choice for sure. I know an additional 2 years isn’t much in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll be 30 when I finish med school and not being done with a rads residency + “required” fellowship at the age of 36 is what discourages me. That may not seem old to many people, but to me it does. It’s probably a lame excuse for not pursuing rads but it’s truly the only one I’ve got.

Rads is 4. Derm is 3?

Both require ty/prelim

Does seem have fellowship too?
 
Well It seems like fellowship is not required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
General making good money straight out of residency
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I mentally kind of lump the surgical subspecialties together, in which case they significantly outnumber. Just seems weird to me that so many competitive applicants want to put themselves through the hell of surgical residency and deal with all the patient-associated BS, deal with equally bad evening/weekend workloads, to make similar $$ to the guys chilling in the reading room. Stereotypes aside, those ~1000 ortho applicants per year are a smart bunch, it just doesn't compute that they love hammering on bones enough to put themselves through all those negatives.

As far as the surgical subs go, it makes sense to me. It's the passion for the fields that causes this to be the case. There was a somewhat recent study showing that the people that entered med school with ortho and nsx as their first choice had the highest amount of students that did not change their minds throughout their time in school. It was 50% and 30%, respectively.
 
Last edited:
Well It seems like fellowship is not required.

Yeah, I believe they used to be required when the job market was crap. Now, it's not really required unless you're in academia.
 
I mentally kind of lump the surgical subspecialties together, in which case they significantly outnumber. Just seems weird to me that so many competitive applicants want to put themselves through the hell of surgical residency and deal with all the patient-associated BS, deal with equally bad evening/weekend workloads, to make similar $$ to the guys chilling in the reading room. Stereotypes aside, those ~1000 ortho applicants per year are a smart bunch, it just doesn't compute that they love hammering on bones enough to put themselves through all those negatives.

Don't underestimate the cool factor when it comes to choosing a specialty. DR seems to be a pretty fantastic field, but no one is going to think you're a stud for doing it. Especially for guys, surgery has this mystique which I think draws more than a few applicants to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I think rads/path people are the types that enjoyed preclinical grinding much more than clinical years. This would explain the higher than average board scores because it selects for people who would do well on those things. I have friends who are plenty competitive for rads who think not interacting with patients and coming up with a plan seems like a nightmare.

It’s a cool field, but the majority of people who apply to med school have a generic idea of what a doctor is. They’re thinking about that smart doctor they shadowed or scribed with. They remember that surgeon who fixed their/their family members whatever. They typically aren’t thinking about someone sitting in a darkroom all day when applying to med school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
TBH, it’s the length of training for me. Six years is just too long for me. I was stuck between derm vs. rads for the longest time. Deep down I’m more interested in rads and know I’d enjoy it more, but I also know I will enjoy derm and the shorter residency makes it more appealing to me. If rads was a 4 year residency like derm, it’d be my #1 choice for sure. I know an additional 2 years isn’t much in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll be 30 when I finish med school and not being done with a rads residency + “required” fellowship at the age of 36 is what discourages me. That may not seem old to many people, but to me it does. It’s probably a lame excuse for not pursuing rads but it’s truly the only one I’ve got.
This makes sense too. I asked my sister in law the same thing and she told me the only reason she crossed off Rads in favor of Derm was the length of the residency. She said she loved radiology and it was her #1 but she says she ultimately chose Derm bc of the shorter residency and because she was also interested in doing research for Pharma but radiology didn't really have many options for pharma...at least not as much as derm. However she says if they were both the same residency length, she would choose Rads.
 
Feels like there's still some reason I'm missing for people not to go into rads... Can anybody shed some light?
I've thought about this a lot and our "rads group" in medical school during 4th year would always talk about this. I think there are a few big things:

1. Most med students are "traditional" and have been a student their entire life. They are immature (not in a derogatory sense) in that they've never held a real job before. I think they get caught up with the excitement of the specialty they're interested in (especially the surgeons) and forget to genuinely consider the impact of the job on their future life. Trauma surgery was BADASS when I rotated as a student - it was by far my favorite rotation (as was surgery in general) but guess what - who's going to really enjoy waking up at 3:30 AM to respond to your 5000th MVC trauma on a Saturday night when you're 50 and married with 3 kids? Not many people. I don't think people understand that medicine will eventually become "just a job" like everything else given enough time. We aren't better than anyone else. Medicine isn't holy. You have to find something that's not only intellectually stimulating but sustainable. I think part of the problem is everyone pretends like medicine is somehow sacrosanct and you must have a "calling" to be a physician... But let's be honest here - for 99% of people that's not the case, especially in today's day and age with EMR and corporate commercialization of medicine run by bureaucrats (anyone else hate all the social work BS we have to do as physicians on general medicine?) and the shift toward a more algorithmic approach to medicine (think Up-to-Date). Very few physicians that are unhappy with their specialization own up to it, preferring instead to hide beyond their prideful facade, which just perpetuates the problem.

To add to this, I think people underestimate how certain specialties will affect their future self. I think the general attitudes of the people in a specialty says something very important. We all know surgeons that are miserable, divorced, with poor relationships with their kids/spouses - they're a dime a dozen. Often we hear the nurses, techs, residents, and students talk sh** behind their back about how mean they are. Do you really want to surround yourself with people like this? Sure, self-selection is a component, but it's inevitable that the specialty you go in to will also mold you - you'll be around them for years, at the very least. Radiologists are some of the friendliest and happiest group of physicians I've worked with, and I think surrounding myself with this group of people will positively affect my future. Most people probably (wrongly) see themselves as immune to this sort of outside influence.

2. I think most people don't want to sit in a dark room all day, especially the women. I think it's really that simple - most people just want a bit more human interaction than most DR jobs will provide. Sure, you can end up as an attending at a large academic institution with a huge reading room but that's not the impression most people get. Lots of people see dark rooms as depressing.

3. I think another big one is that it's hard to fully grasp what's going on in the radiologist's head while he's reading images and therefore it's difficult to appreciate and enjoy the work. Unlike many other specialties (like medicine) where the med student instantly sees a direct connection between what they're learning (e.g. COPD) and what they see as a third year (lots of COPD), lots of the knowledge radiologists draw upon when working isn't really taught in medical school. Take a look at a basic chest x-ray book like Felson's and you start to learn so many clever tricks or interesting tidbits of physics that help you piece together what's actually going on with that image - silhouette sign helping differentiate consolidation in different lobes that overlap on AP imaging, or figuring out which is the L or R diaphragm on a lateral. What about figuring out how to tell if the patient is rotated and to which side? All are very basic questions that have fascinating solutions, and none of them are obvious in our education. Most people see a CXR and think "lungs, ribs, white stuff" - it's really unfortunate. In short, I think medical students have to put in much more effort to fully appreciate the rewarding aspects of radiology as compared to almost every other specialty whose perks are more or less obvious.

4. And of course the other ones mentioned previously also play a role. Competitiveness, wanting patient interaction, prestige (DR definitely attracts people comfortable staying anywhere BUT the spotlight), etc... I guess there are some people who probably genuinely avoided DR because of the threat of AI but I don't think they are the sharpest tool in the shed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 12 users
Interesting, I always figured 1 or 2 more years of training was worth it to tolerate my daily job of 20+ years better. Are you a FIRE by 50 type? Otherwise I think you're an outlier for choosing your specialty off of 1-2 years difference!
I’m not necessarily the FIRE by 50 type. Simply put, I’m just starting to feel old in med school. I’m tired of not having a job with a decent salary like so many of my friends outside of medicine. Choosing derm over rads gives me two more years of salary that I would lose if I chose rads. That’s about a $800k decision. Like I said above, I know I’d like rads more than derm, but derm is still something I enjoy. So my mindset is why not choose something I’d still enjoy, maybe not as much as rads, but at least it gets me out of training and started on a career 2 years quicker.
 
Well It seems like fellowship is not required.
General making good money straight out of residency
Idk how true this is... I’d like/hope for it to be true. From what I’ve read/heard it seems like the general rads jobs are rare and that the ones that are available are typically in undesirable locations. If more residents or attendings could chime in on whether or not a fellowship is still “required” and how the general rads job outlook appears (i.e. locations, pay, etc), that would be greatly appreciated.
 
Imagine not going into radiology because a colleague medical student’s predictions on AI...

You jest but I definitely vibe with Gurby's point. As a third year fully committed to Rads it is definitely disheartening to constantly be defending your life choice any time it comes up in conversation. When residents, attendings, and other medical students say mostly negative things about your specialty choice, one can't help but to be brought down by it, even if you shake it off eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You jest but I definitely vibe with Gurby's point. As a third year fully committed to Rads it is definitely disheartening to constantly be defending your life choice any time it comes up in conversation. When residents, attendings, and other medical students say mostly negative things about your specialty choice, one can't help but to be brought down by it, even if you shake it off eventually.
So far in MS3 I've heard negative stereotypes a bunch about ER, ortho and derm, but only utmost respect for Rads. Must be very institution dependent, I'm sure there are programs you can train in where you're not treated poorly like that
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
You jest but I definitely vibe with Gurby's point. As a third year fully committed to Rads it is definitely disheartening to constantly be defending your life choice any time it comes up in conversation. When residents, attendings, and other medical students say mostly negative things about your specialty choice, one can't help but to be brought down by it, even if you shake it off eventually.

I don't bother defending it at all. I'm a pragmatist. I know it won't be taken over by AI in our lifetimes. It's all talk. I may lose my job if AI takes over my work, but I know that won't happen, and I won't lose my job from misinformed people talking about how AI will take over my job. So why bother? Let them wallow in their ignorance. I just shrug and move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
TBH, it’s the length of training for me. Six years is just too long for me. I was stuck between derm vs. rads for the longest time. Deep down I’m more interested in rads and know I’d enjoy it more, but I also know I will enjoy derm and the shorter residency makes it more appealing to me. If rads was a 4 year residency like derm, it’d be my #1 choice for sure. I know an additional 2 years isn’t much in the grand scheme of things, but I’ll be 30 when I finish med school and not being done with a rads residency + “required” fellowship at the age of 36 is what discourages me. That may not seem old to many people, but to me it does. It’s probably a lame excuse for not pursuing rads but it’s truly the only one I’ve got.
As somebody who is going to be finishing DR residency at 36 and fellowship at 37, I'm not compelled by that reasoning. The years will go by no matter what you choose, so why not go with the career you'll enjoy more for the subsequent 30+ years of practice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
As somebody who is going to be finishing DR residency at 36 and fellowship at 37, I'm not compelled by that reasoning. The years will go by no matter what you choose, so why not go with the career you'll enjoy more for the subsequent 30+ years of practice?
Did you complete a full IM residency first and then enter DR training instead of a similarly lengthy fellowship? If so can you comment on why you made the swap and how residency compares in each (not just in terms of hours, but mental effort/exhaustion and burnout). It's not often that people experience both and can provide comparison
 
I've thought about this a lot and our "rads group" in medical school during 4th year would always talk about this. I think there are a few big things:

1. Most med students are "traditional" and have been a student their entire life. They are immature (not in a derogatory sense) in that they've never held a real job before. I think they get caught up with the excitement of the specialty they're interested in (especially the surgeons) and forget to genuinely consider the impact of the job on their future life. Trauma surgery was BADASS when I rotated as a student - it was by far my favorite rotation (as was surgery in general) but guess what - who's going to really enjoy waking up at 3:30 AM to respond to your 5000th MVC trauma on a Saturday night when you're 50 and married with 3 kids? Not many people. I don't think people understand that medicine will eventually become "just a job" like everything else given enough time. We aren't better than anyone else. Medicine isn't holy. You have to find something that's not only intellectually stimulating but sustainable. I think part of the problem is everyone pretends like medicine is somehow sacrosanct and you must have a "calling" to be a physician... But let's be honest here - for 99% of people that's not the case, especially in today's day and age with EMR and corporate commercialization of medicine run by bureaucrats (anyone else hate all the social work BS we have to do as physicians on general medicine?) and the shift toward a more algorithmic approach to medicine (think Up-to-Date). Very few physicians that are unhappy with their specialization own up to it, preferring instead to hide beyond their prideful facade, which just perpetuates the problem.

To add to this, I think people underestimate how certain specialties will affect their future self. I think the general attitudes of the people in a specialty says something very important. We all know surgeons that are miserable, divorced, with poor relationships with their kids/spouses - they're a dime a dozen. Often we hear the nurses, techs, residents, and students talk sh** behind their back about how mean they are. Do you really want to surround yourself with people like this? Sure, self-selection is a component, but it's inevitable that the specialty you go in to will also mold you - you'll be around them for years, at the very least. Radiologists are some of the friendliest and happiest group of physicians I've worked with, and I think surrounding myself with this group of people will positively affect my future. Most people probably (wrongly) see themselves as immune to this sort of outside influence.

2. I think most people don't want to sit in a dark room all day, especially the women. I think it's really that simple - most people just want a bit more human interaction than most DR jobs will provide. Sure, you can end up as an attending at a large academic institution with a huge reading room but that's not the impression most people get. Lots of people see dark rooms as depressing.

3. I think another big one is that it's hard to fully grasp what's going on in the radiologist's head while he's reading images and therefore it's difficult to appreciate and enjoy the work. Unlike many other specialties (like medicine) where the med student instantly sees a direct connection between what they're learning (e.g. COPD) and what they see as a third year (lots of COPD), lots of the knowledge radiologists draw upon when working isn't really taught in medical school. Take a look at a basic chest x-ray book like Felson's and you start to learn so many clever tricks or interesting tidbits of physics that help you piece together what's actually going on with that image - silhouette sign helping differentiate consolidation in different lobes that overlap on AP imaging, or figuring out which is the L or R diaphragm on a lateral. What about figuring out how to tell if the patient is rotated and to which side? All are very basic questions that have fascinating solutions, and none of them are obvious in our education. Most people see a CXR and think "lungs, ribs, white stuff" - it's really unfortunate. In short, I think medical students have to put in much more effort to fully appreciate the rewarding aspects of radiology as compared to almost every other specialty whose perks are more or less obvious.

4. And of course the other ones mentioned previously also play a role. Competitiveness, wanting patient interaction, prestige (DR definitely attracts people comfortable staying anywhere BUT the spotlight), etc... I guess there are some people who probably genuinely avoided DR because of the threat of AI but I don't think they are the sharpest tool in the shed.

This is a fantastic post, and puts into words a lot of the feelings I was having that landed me to my ultimate specialty selection (pathology).

I've said this before elsewhere, but I actually thought that in general, the rads residents and attendings came off as the nicest, most enjoyable physicians to be around in all of my clinical rotations. I think there's this unfair stereotype of rads/path folks being asocial, but it certainly wasn't my experience. I'm personally an introvert, but I really enjoy talking to people; I just realized that I can (hopefully) get that need met by interacting with colleagues throughout the day and with friends/family in my spare time, rather than by seeing 20 patients in a day. I'd imagine there are other rads/path folks who are very nice people that ultimately came to the same conclusion about social interaction as I did. Ironically, one of the reasons I'm not choosing a patient-facing specialty is because I don't want to become that miserable physician who finds it difficult to have positive interactions with others on account of their unhappiness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Did you complete a full IM residency first and then enter DR training instead of a similarly lengthy fellowship? If so can you comment on why you made the swap and how residency compares in each (not just in terms of hours, but mental effort/exhaustion and burnout). It's not often that people experience both and can provide comparison
Heh sadly I can't comment on IM residency except for the fact that I survived my Medicine PGY1 and never want to look back. No, I was somewhat a nontraditional and had a few years between starting and finishing college when I was working full-time in some blue collar jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Can someone elaborate on what exactly is meant by "weekend call"? Does it require you to be up the entire 72 hours (Fri-Sun)? Or is it just day-work over the weekend?

Also, how often do you have to take this type of call as an attending? Is this the only form of call you have to take or are there different types? And how busy are these call shifts usually (a rough grind the entire time or fairly calm)?
 
Radiology call is a different beast from clinical call, and this is coming from someone who did OB for a few years before switching residencies. A lot of clinical call you can just put yourself on autopilot and go through the motions - writing notes, putting in orders, assisting in the OR.

Radiology call is the most mentally exhausting thing I’ve ever done. We have 3 shifts: 8-4, 8-9pish, and 9p-7a (night float).

With few exceptions you are reading studies constantly, I mean constantly. You’re also constantly being interrupted by some clinician who wants you to, ‘just do a quick wet read,’ for a pan-scan because they have no idea what’s happening with the patient. Or the ED is calling about some ridiculous study they performed for no apparent reason they can give you but their dispo is pending on what you do.

The easiest way to think of it is, we perform the physical exams nowadays. Other services manage labs and orders but we actually make the diagnoses (this is an exaggeration but helps me contextualize some of the busy work.)

The good news is we only do a call weekend about once a month, if that. OB was every other weekend and included 24hr calls during that time. We also stand up and leave at the end of our shifts. I can’t count the number of deliveries, c/sections or BS E.R. consults I was sucked into at the end of my OB calls.

They’re rough shifts but the normal day to day of radiology is so much better than clinical medicine that, to me, it’s so worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
Radiology call is a different beast from clinical call, and this is coming from someone who did OB for a few years before switching residencies. A lot of clinical call you can just put yourself on autopilot and go through the motions - writing notes, putting in orders, assisting in the OR.

Radiology call is the most mentally exhausting thing I’ve ever done. We have 3 shifts: 8-4, 8-9pish, and 9p-7a (night float).

With few exceptions you are reading studies constantly, I mean constantly. You’re also constantly being interrupted by some clinician who wants you to, ‘just do a quick wet read,’ for a pan-scan because they have no idea what’s happening with the patient. Or the ED is calling about some ridiculous study they performed for no apparent reason they can give you but their dispo is pending on what you do.

The easiest way to think of it is, we perform the physical exams nowadays. Other services manage labs and orders but we actually make the diagnoses (this is an exaggeration but helps me contextualize some of the busy work.)

The good news is we only do a call weekend about once a month, if that. OB was every other weekend and included 24hr calls during that time. We also stand up and leave at the end of our shifts. I can’t count the number of deliveries, c/sections or BS E.R. consults I was sucked into at the end of my OB calls.

They’re rough shifts but the normal day to day of radiology is so much better than clinical medicine that, to me, it’s so worth it.

Agree with everything. I will add that we have no control over what's being ordered and that can be frustrating at times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
So Call just means an extra shift on the weekends? Not staying for 24-30 hours?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So Call just means an extra shift on the weekends? Not staying for 24-30 hours?
From my limited exposure, call either means extra shifts on the weekend or the "late" shift that ends at midnight or something because Nighthawk is on after that. That said, there were also minor swing shifts kinda like how ER does it. There were also early days when it was your turn to come in at 7 instead of 8 to help overread the preliminary reports from Nighthawk that occured the previous night. Their version of call has to be that way because it's quite busy.

In groups that have in-house staff overnight, it sounds like they have dedicated night shifters or it's a straight bloodbath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This sounds sweet. Any chance big hospitals or PP groups would hire IRs for overnight jobs like this in the future as their role keeps expanding? Almost for the utility of something like a hospitalist, for the emergent call stuff...

I know of one place where this exists. It may be the only place in the country. Most hospitals do not have anywhere near enough IR volume to justify this.
 
Agree with everything. I will add that we have no control over what's being ordered and that can be frustrating at times.

Do Rads faculty in hospital-based settings ever hold conferences or talks on when certain imaging modalities are actually indicated? ... or how to circumvent common "mistakes" in terms of ordering diagnostic imaging that's not indicated?

Or is this generally avoided because it's expected that it would be poorly received by other staff/not make a difference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The ED has got to be the most soul-sucking place to work. For all the crap that happens on the wards it just seems to pale in comparison. The name of the game is entirely disposition. If dying, stabilize and ship to unit. If not sick at all spend energy trying to convince them that they are ok/don’t need narcotics/don’t need antibiotics/aren’t going to get a cancer workup right then and there. If sick but not dying, have the radiologist tell you what’s going on so you can consult the appropriate service.

It was really eye opening to rotate as a late year intern. I now understand A: why many of them are so visibly burned out and B: why patients get scanned for very soft indications. Don’t think either will change anytime soon. Yikes. Would rather go back to my busy on-service surgery rotations.
 
Do Rads faculty in hospital-based settings ever hold conferences or talks on when certain imaging modalities are actually indicated? ... or how to circumvent common "mistakes" in terms of ordering diagnostic imaging that's not indicated?

Or is this generally avoided because it's expected that it would be poorly received by other staff/not make a difference?

So we’re fee for service and administrators would be upset if we held conferences trying to reduce the number of images generated.

Also, a lot clinical teams that order large volumes of garbage, read as Emergency Department, get rather prickly when we start acting like true consultants - they just want a study so they can dispo a patient.

Sub specialty teams usually are appreciative when we re-direct them toward a study that can answer their clinical question. However, we often run into issues when contacting the person who actually ordered the study, especially with non-indicated outpt studies. Plus, those are usually just done because of prior auths that have to be performed and patients are pretty ornery when they’re told they have to come back because the referrer put in the wrong order (then we get an angry phone call from the referrer so they can save face).

The real way for this all to be mitigated would to treat radiology as a true consulting service. Send the patient to us, tell us what you’re concerned for and allow us to order the best studies to answer that question - evaluating an brain, chest, abdomen, pelvis...etc is more complicated than checking a hemoglobin especially now with how complex imaging is with the various modalities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
So we’re fee for service and administrators would be upset if we held conferences trying to reduce the number of images generated.

Also, a lot clinical teams that order large volumes of garbage, read as Emergency Department, get rather prickly when we start acting like true consultants - they just want a study so they can dispo a patient.

Sub specialty teams usually are appreciative when we re-direct them toward a study that can answer their clinical question. However, we often run into issues when contacting the person who actually ordered the study, especially with non-indicated outpt studies. Plus, those are usually just done because of prior auths that have to be performed and patients are pretty ornery when they’re told they have to come back because the referrer put in the wrong order (then we get an angry phone call from the referrer so they can save face).

The real way for this all to be mitigated would to treat radiology as a true consulting service. Send the patient to us, tell us what you’re concerned for and allow us to order the best studies to answer that question - evaluating an brain, chest, abdomen, pelvis...etc is more complicated than checking a hemoglobin especially now with how complex imaging is with the various modalities.
How would that affect our salaries tho?
 
The real way for this all to be mitigated would to treat radiology as a true consulting service. Send the patient to us, tell us what you’re concerned for and allow us to order the best studies to answer that question - evaluating an brain, chest, abdomen, pelvis...etc is more complicated than checking a hemoglobin especially now with how complex imaging is with the various modalities.

It's an interesting idea. But would that mean we'd have to physically see and evaluate the patients ourselves?

I personally do like seeing patients, but I'm just wondering how this would work given the current logistics and workflow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It's an interesting idea. But would that mean we'd have to physically see and evaluate the patients ourselves?

I personally do like seeing patients, but I'm just wondering how this would work given the current logistics and workflow.

Maybe a dumb question, but how often does a DR go see an actual patient, assuming you're not performing a procedure or something?
 
It's an interesting idea. But would that mean we'd have to physically see and evaluate the patients ourselves?

I personally do like seeing patients, but I'm just wondering how this would work given the current logistics and workflow.

I just don’t see this happening anywhere other than academic centers because of how much reimbursement stands to be lost by having radiologists not reading through the list AFAP and cranking out RVUs. Even in academic centers where the belt is tightening I just don’t see this happening.

If CMS were to adjust their reimbursement so that it isn’t a fee-per-read, it might make sense. Right now I just don’t see the practice infrastructure allowing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Getting constantly interrupted and having to walk the wards and see patients prior to approving a chest X-ray request sounds miserable and a great way to increase misses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Getting constantly interrupted and having to walk the wards and see patients prior to approving a chest X-ray request sounds miserable and a great way to increase misses.
It seems like a great way to stop smart people from going into radiology in the first place. A huge benefit is obviously not dealing with clinical bs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
It is not feasible for radiologists to see and evaluate every single patient who needs cross-sectional imaging.

The only way this sort of idea could possibly work is if we had dedicated radiology midlevels wandering the wards to take H&Ps and protocol for imaging.

Honestly there is no incentive in American healthcare to do this since this would imply hiring people to reduce hospital billings lol.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If we could bill for the consultation, that would be one thing. I don't know how much the hypothetical reimbursement would be. And I agree it would be yet another interruption especially if we're talking about ICU radiographs for which there could be a ton.

And if we don't take care of all the consults in a timely manner, other specialties may be itching to create imaging fellowships because they'll believe they have the better clinical acumen to judge which tests are warranted. It's not too far-fetched: cardiology has done plenty of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sorry to briefly derail but I think it fits here better than a new thread:

Is it reasonable to expect a partnership track gig as a 7 on/14 off nighthawk? Or do those mostly stick to 400k employed? Briefly poking around on the ACR jobs postings, I'm having difficulty finding medium private groups that want to offer partner to their night coverage
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Appreciate it, guys. I did see a couple after searching for a while. Seems like medicine's best kept secret - make Spine money per hour while only being expected to work 120 shifts/year? Cannot believe you can have all that just for being a night owl.
 
Appreciate it, guys. I did see a couple after searching for a while. Seems like medicine's best kept secret - make Spine money per hour while only being expected to work 120 shifts/year? Cannot believe you can have all that just for being a night owl.

I have considered doing a gig like that because I like dealing with emergency radiology, but I don't know if I want to abandon my procedural fetish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
1. Where do you work (hospital or private practice, and which state)

Private practice in the midwest

2. How quickly do you have to read scans? Are you pressured to read faster or is it relatively at your own pace?


Depends, work is what everyone here considers to be busy but it isn't overwhelming. Im a couple years out and while id like to have more time I don't feel overly rushed most of the time

3. What are your hours, what is call like for you and do you work weekends.

Mostly 8 am to 4:30 weekdays. occasional 7 am tumor boards thrown in. rotating evening shifts. Call weekends 1:4 with 2 days off next work week as "post call". nights are covered by prelim tele

4 .How many weeks of vacation do you get per year?

12 per year

5. what do you think, given that you are in the field, will be the future of radiology? Will demand increase? Will reimbursements drop?

Trend since my training started has been more studies, year after year. The CT comes before the patient even sees a DR in our ER. I dont see this reversing anytime soon, esp with the aging boomer population and their medical needs

6. What is your salary?

$~650ish

7. Are you happy?

I'd like to think so. life is busy as a rad and even with the time off i miss more than I'd like to though
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Top