Interventional Radiology Interview Thread 2016-2017

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I have a slightly different take as I trained at a residency that was solid in DR but not clinical in IR (as we think of clinical IR today). We did not admit patients or do formal consults or have robust outpatient clinics. A lot of radiology you can learn in books, videos, statdx and from hours and hours of studying.

I was lucky enough to go to a fellowship where there was very aggressive clinical IR doc who admitted their own patients , accepted transfers and had an extremely busy clinic. They were also was able to compete successfully for vascular cases as they were great clinically.

I think the quality of the IR is paramount for integrated IR residencies. Certainly you want to make sure you get the gamut of technical experience (i.e. cerebral angiograms and stroke interventions as well as carotid stents, lower extremity revascularizations, aortic interventions, trans arterial treatments of liver cancer, ablation of various tumors throughout the body, fibroid therapy, vertebral compression fracture treatment etc).

It is more important to learn how to be an aggressive clinical interventional physician. You need to learn how to compete for referrals and how to build a practice. If a place is not even trying to build a vascular practice, to me that is a red flag as they are not willing or capable of competing for referrals.

You want to be able to see diabetic wounds in the clinic as well as undifferentiated leg pain patients in the clinic and be able to render an opinion. You also want to make sure you have true integrated IR training (i.e. not just 3 total months of IR for 3 years (PGY2,3,4)). A minimum of 2 to 3 months of IR /clinical rotations including vascular surgery and ICU should be incorporated in the PGY2,3,4 to get adequate clinical exposure to be a reasonable clinician coming out of a 6 year training program.

2 year IR fellowships used to exist over a decade ago, though they were better equipped technically they were still not good clinicians and thus were unable to build robust practices. It is most important to go to a program that has busy outpatient clinics, give numerous talks and CME to other physicians (primary care etc) and has aggressive marketing strategy. Also, you want to go to a place that admits their own patients and does formal useful consults and does not have order entry for invasive procedures.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Anyone want to give their impression of Brigham and Mount Sinai IR?
 
Mt. Sinai

Positives: Mt. Sinai is known as an excellent IR program. They have hefty case volumes, excellent variety, and faculty who enjoy working with trainees. They have the totality of modern clinical IR including rounding, admitting privileges and outpatient clinics. They even run workshops for other attendings on emerging therapies such as transradial approaches. Other positives included the fact that many of the attendings trained there, and at least three of the residents I met ranked them #1. I don't think many programs can claim to be the #1 seed for half their residents. The combination of great training + location (NYC) makes it a very competitive program.

Downsides: I got the vibe that they are very clinically-focused. If research/business/global medicine is your thing they might not be the best choice. I also felt the interview day left much to be desired. I applied IR-integrated only (i.e. not DR), and only had two 15-minute interviews. Afterwards we saw a case-conference and went on a tour. The hospital felt pretty cramped. I realize it's in NYC, but I didn't get the same claustrophobic vibe from, say, NYU.

Overall, it's a solid choice for IR training in NYC. Personally, I feel that it is hands-down a great place for IR fellowship, but I didn't get enough exposure to comment on the DR years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Mt. Sinai

Positives: Mt. Sinai is known as an excellent IR program. They have hefty case volumes, excellent variety, and faculty who enjoy working with trainees. They have the totality of modern clinical IR including rounding, admitting privileges and outpatient clinics. They even run workshops for other attendings on emerging therapies such as transradial approaches. Other positives included the fact that many of the attendings trained there, and at least three of the residents I met ranked them #1. I don't think many programs can claim to be the #1 seed for half their residents. The combination of great training + location (NYC) makes it a very competitive program.

Downsides: I got the vibe that they are very clinically-focused. If research/business/global medicine is your thing they might not be the best choice. I also felt the interview day left much to be desired. I applied IR-integrated only (i.e. not DR), and only had two 15-minute interviews. Afterwards we saw a case-conference and went on a tour. The hospital felt pretty cramped. I realize it's in NYC, but I didn't get the same claustrophobic vibe from, say, NYU.

Overall, it's a solid choice for IR training in NYC. Personally, I feel that it is hands-down a great place for IR fellowship, but I didn't get enough exposure to comment on the DR years.


Do you have an idea what the moonlighting is like at Sinai?
 
Does anyone have the email address for the IR/DR and DR program directors at Cornell? Apparently they are on the flash drive that I lost somewhere along the way
 
Not sure if anyone on this forum knows but hopefully a PD will read this and respond.

I was wondering since majority of programs are doing combined interview days or members of the selection committee overlap heavily.

A big question in my mind is how the DR selection committee ranking the applicant? Would it be completely independent from the IR selection committee ranking? I'm sure it's difficult to ignore the fact that the applicant in many cases will be ranking the IR/DR position higher than the DR position and probably many times other IR/DR programs will come before the DR position. And I'm wondering if this becomes a factor when ranking an applicant for DR.

I think this is a question mark atleast I would like to consider (don't know about others) as there are definitely DR programs I would like to match to over other IR/DR programs especially because there's other avenues to become IR that gives me more flexibility. I'm wondering if it hurts me now to try to match to a DR program because the selection committee are in many cases made of similar members between the two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would love to know the answer to that as well. I think there is no way to predict how DR programs are going to rank applicants at this point. This is as new to them as it is to us. They might have to rank a lot more applicants knowing that their top applicants are likely IR/DR or rank DR-only applicants higher so as to not gamble with the possibility of going unfilled.

Personally, I'm going to be ranking all IR/DR programs on top over a lot of really good DR programs. The promise of ESIR isn't really appealing at all for me, especially since there is usually only 1 spot available for ESIR at most programs I'm applying to. To me, that just means extending the same grind of medical school into residency and competing internally without any guarantee you'll be able to secure an ESIR spot. The Direct Pathway is the least appealing since it's 2 extra years on top of a 5-year residency. I'd rather have the assurance/peace of mind of a secured IR spot before starting residency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I spoke to several interviewers about this situation. There is one concerning possibility from a program perspective's point of view: What if program X ranks all of its IR/DR applicants high for both IR and DR? And then suppose all the IR/DR interviewees rank X IR/DR #1 and X DR #2. They would fill their entire class with people interested in IR, making ESIR very competitive at that program. To avoid this situation, there will likely be some bias against ranking IR-applicants high for DR-only.

Anecdotally, the program director at Georgetown told of us an applicant from UCSF who wants to do IR, but is applying DR-only because he thinks top-DR programs will be biased against IR applicants. I wonder if that person is on these forums...
 
I think this is the most sound advice for anyone who's set on becoming an interventional radiologist. Trying to out-guess the system is asking for trouble in my opinion. Personally I think being an IR/DR resident at a tier 2 program is MUCH better than being a DR resident at a tier 1 program.

If you're not sold on IR, then DR is the way to go. More flexibility, and likely less competitive than IR/DR.

Personally, I'm going to be ranking all IR/DR programs on top over a lot of really good DR programs. The promise of ESIR isn't really appealing at all for me, especially since there is usually only 1 spot available for ESIR at most programs I'm applying to. To me, that just means extending the same grind of medical school into residency and competing internally without any guarantee you'll be able to secure an ESIR spot. The Direct Pathway is the least appealing since it's 2 extra years on top of a 5-year residency. I'd rather have the assurance/piece of mind of a secured IR spot before starting residency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I spoke to several interviewers about this situation. There is one concerning possibility from a program perspective's point of view: What if program X ranks all of its IR/DR applicants high for both IR and DR? And then suppose all the IR/DR interviewees rank X IR/DR #1 and X DR #2. They would fill their entire class with people interested in IR, making ESIR very competitive at that program. To avoid this situation, there will likely be some bias against ranking IR-applicants high for DR-only.

Anecdotally, the program director at Georgetown told of us an applicant from UCSF who wants to do IR, but is applying DR-only because he thinks top-DR programs will be biased against IR applicants. I wonder if that person is on these forums...

Why would a program care if the ESIR is competitive at their institution? This is actually the case at Penn right now with R1s, the upper class men joke that they are a competitive class, but they seem to take it in stride, Im sure it had only increased research production, which some may see as a negative thing but I imagine if you ranked Penn highly you would probably be ok with that. I agree that it is probably not best to get a class full of IR folks, but PDs have been seeing residents come in wanting to do IR for years and about 50% change their mind. Every PD I've spoken too is expecting a lot of flux between the IR and DR programs internally. I'm sure every program will have their way for ranking people, but I have a hard time believing that a concurrent application to the institutions IR program will be a separate metric that would move you down the DR rank list. Maybe I'm too optimistic, or just hoping to get my match. I will probably be putting IR and DR for the same institution #1 and #2. We shall see how it all plays out.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Just because a program has an ESIR program doesn't mean they will take you into their independent IR residency. You still have to go through the process of applying for an independent IR residency. Having done ESIR just means that wherever you do your independent IR residency, you get to complete the program in 1 year instead of 2 years.

I would be very worried that the number of independent residency spots will be limited around the country. 2 reasons I say this:

1) I don't think any program has been approved for independent (2-year) IR residencies yet. So nobody knows how many there will be. For all we know there may end up being 150 IR/DR spots, but only 30 independent IR spots in the country. (*I'm making up those numbers)

2) Just because a program is approved for a certain number of positions doesn't mean they'll use them. For example, if program X has 3 IR/DR spots they may also have been approved for 3 independent residency spots. But they may only open those spots up if someone from the IR/DR residency drops out. So the independent spot may just be a backup system for the hospital. I concede it's still possible that some programs may consistently open both their IR/DR and independent IR positions. You just really have to be sure you know all the variables when you make your rank list.

I agree with @IR4thewin that ranking IR and DR programs at the same institution will not hurt your chances of matching at that program. But I can't imagine why anyone who's interested in IR would do that. I think you would be significantly limiting your chances of a career in IR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
UT Southwestern last date is: 12/14, how accurate is this? Does anyone has interview date after this? I'm on wait list:(
 
Members don't see this ad :)
For anyone who has interviewed at USC- is there a dinner the night before? Can't find it in any emails
 
For University of Michigan, who is the program director? I thought it was Dr. Khaja all this time but now I see Dr. Saad when I look back.
 
For University of Michigan, who is the program director? I thought it was Dr. Khaja all this time but now I see Dr. Saad when I look back.
officially Saad, but I think Khaja's running the residency interviews? at least my impression
 
Can anyone give me an idea of MIR's reputation/quality in IR? I know it's a top notch DR program of course but I don't know where it stands in IR specifically.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Here is a fun exercise, let's try to rank the IR/DR programs into tiers based on:
1) IR prestige, Faculty/Research output, Clinical IR training,
2) (much less so) DR Prestige
and
3) excluding location (everyone has different preferences)

In no particular order:
Tier 1
UCLA, Stanford, UMich, Sinai, Penn, Vanderbilt, UVA, UWash Seattle, MCW, Northwestern, MUSC


Tier 2
UCSD, UCSF, U Colorado, Yale, Emory, Rush,NYP Columbia, NYP Cornell, NYU, MGH, OHSU, Brown, Jefferson, WashU, BID, Brigham, UIC, Maine Medical Center, Albany, MD Anderson, Christiana Care, Duke, OHSU, Penn State, Temple, UTSW, USC

Tier 3
UPMC, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Loma Linda, Mayo, UF, USF, Iowa, Kansas, LSU, Henry Ford, Beaumont, Minnesota, Mary Hitchcock / NH, Montefiore, Hofstra, OSU, Einstein PA, Utah
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Rush, Brown, Christiana Care, Maine Medical Center are some very strong programs that have excellent clinical IR training.

I would look at programs that have an aggressive clinical mindset and the above group have some aggressive IR faculty. Rush (Arslan), Brown (Soares, Ahn), Christiana Care (Leung , Garcia unfortunately has left), Maine Medical Center (Mittleider). I would try to learn as much from those individuals about how to build an IR practice. This will enable you to go out and set up a shingle and build a successful high end practice.

Look at how much clinic the residents/fellows are doing. Look at their case logs as well and at what stage of training they become primary operator.
 
Rush, Brown, Christiana Care, Maine Medical Center are some very strong programs that have excellent clinical IR training.

I would look at programs that have an aggressive clinical mindset and the above group have some aggressive IR faculty. Rush (Arslan), Brown (Soares, Ahn), Christiana Care (Leung , Garcia unfortunately has left), Maine Medical Center (Mittleider). I would try to learn as much from those individuals about how to build an IR practice. This will enable you to go out and set up a shingle and build a successful high end practice.

Look at how much clinic the residents/fellows are doing. Look at their case logs as well and at what stage of training they become primary operator.

agree with you. I think it is silly to separate Tier 2A/B. but arguably, they are still solid programs.
 
The one quality you selected to rate less significantly (Clinical IR training) is arguably the most important quality in a program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The one quality you selected to rate less significantly (Clinical IR training) is arguably the most important quality in a program.

Sorry my post was ambiguous - IR prestige, Faculty/Research output, Clinical IR training = ALL VERY IMPORTANT.
DR Prestige = less important
 
Agree the clinical training is most important and is unfortunately an inherent weakness in many of the current IR training programs. It is exceedingly difficult for a student to ascertain that. I assumed I was going to a clinical training program , but later realized that it was an older model of training and watched many procedures slowly drift from the IR division to other specialties. Hopefully with newer attendings coming out they will be able to change things.

The more I practice, the more I realize the technical component is not the hard part. Rendering a clinical decision of who to treat and when to treat and the preoperative assessment, peri-procedural management (including prescribing appropriate medicines) and post operative course as well as longitudinal foliow up is key.

I would also look to see where the referrals are coming from (specialists or primary care) and if the IR group is marketing directly to patients and primary care. Specialist referrals historically are not sustainable as the specialists will often learn and offer the minimally invasive approaches as well.

Some identifying features to look into:

How many hospital admissions to the IR service ?
How many outpatient initial clinic visits?
How many outpatient follow up clinic visits?
How long do they follow up patients for (one quick post op check or for the life of the patient?)

Scope and breadth and volume of IR practice

1) Oncology (transarterial/ablative)
2) Vascular disease (PAD/carotid disease/aortic disease (thoracic/abdominal)/DVT/PE/superficial venous disease/chronic venous insufficiency)
3) Women's health (fibroids/tubal recanalization/pelvic congestion)
4) Pain interventions (vertebral augmentation/rhizotomy/facets/nerve blocks/pain pumps/stimulators)
5) Neuro interventions (stroke therapy/intracranial atherosclerosis/avm/aneurysms/epistaxis./tumor embo)
6)Non vascular (abscess management, chest tubes, enteral tubes, biliary , gu interventions)
7) Pediatric interventions (arterial/non vascular etc)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Here is a fun exercise, let's try to rank the IR/DR programs into tiers based on:
1) IR prestige, Faculty/Research output, Clinical IR training,
2) (much less so) DR Prestige
and
3) excluding location (everyone has different preferences)

In no particular order:
Tier 1
UCLA, Stanford, UMich, Sinai, Penn, Vanderbilt, UVA, UWash Seattle, MCW, Northwestern, MUSC


Tier 2
UCSD, UCSF, U Colorado, Yale, Emory, Rush,NYP Columbia, NYP Cornell, NYU, MGH, OHSU, Brown, Jefferson, WashU, BID, Brigham, UIC, Maine Medical Center, Albany, MD Anderson, Christiana Care, Duke, OHSU, Penn State, Temple, UTSW, USC

Tier 3
UPMC, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Loma Linda, Mayo, UF, USF, Iowa, Kansas, LSU, Henry Ford, Beaumont, Minnesota, Mary Hitchcock / NH, Montefiore, Hofstra, OSU, Einstein PA, Utah


I'm glad you were able to compile a tier list like this. You have unintentionally affected my future rank list decisions only because I have no idea how to tier out the list myself.
 
I'm glad you were able to compile a tier list like this. You have unintentionally affected my future rank list decisions only because I have no idea how to tier out the list myself.

NP. Just a disclaimer, take my list with some caveats - I would say that this list is compiled based on conversations w/ attendings and my experience being involved in the IR world for the past 2+ years. There are many that would argue for example that Yale should be Tier 1 (recent recruitment of strong names in IO) or that MGH should be Tier 3 (historically a poor IR department). However, MGH DR is world class and there have been recent changes to the IR department (bumping it up) and
Yale IR has a reputation for malignancy and weak clinical training and low-end-procedure-heavy IR with miserable fellows (bumping it down). Rankings are obviously subjective to an extent and you should choose based on your own research and experience.
 
Last edited:
This list is useless. You're basically just ranking IR fellowships. And even then, I strongly dispute several of the listings.

Your DR certificate has a lot more importance than you realize when you get a job. You're not being hired by an IR-only group. You're being hired by a radiology group - many (if not most) of whom are diagnostic radiologists. I'm not saying DR is more important than IR, but the weighting should be more like 40:60 DR:IR.

Let's also not forget that location is huge. If you want to practice in Philadelphia, your MUSC diploma isn't helping one bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Cant say I agree. literally every DR resident in the country uses Radprimer/StatDX/Huda/whatever, and passes the boards. When you get hired as an IR/DR, arguably your IR connections matter much more than DR depending on how IR heavy you want to go. Your DR training is validated by passing the boards, but your MGH DR degree isnt going to land you an IR job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This list is useless. You're basically just ranking IR fellowships. And even then, I strongly dispute several of the listings.

I found the list useful though I know it's just one person's opinion. I think it would be helpful to get as many people weighing in on this as possible, so if you dispute some of the listings I'd be curious to hear which ones, and/or what your list would look like.
 
If you want to do a 50/50 job I think that the DR training becomes more important and the IR training less important as it is exceedingly difficult to build a high end IR practice doing 1/2 time IR.

If your goal is to eventually do high end IR and spend the majority of your time or 100 percent of your time doing IR and ultimately develop a robust clinical IR practice, I would think the IR training is far more important. The question you should ask yourself is can you build an outpatient IR practice from scratch after your training. At this point only a handful of programs are capable of this level of training.

I have seen several IR graduates come out who are not comfortable with doing many types of procedures including lower extremity arterial intervention, cerebral angiography, PE interventions etc. If you have not done some of these procedures, you will need to be proctored (which can get challenging). When it comes to imaging and there is a study you are not certain about, you can always look it up in statdx, radio graphics, google or even phone a friend and FaceTime the images (one of your imaging colleagues or even a clinical sub specialist ).

IR residency is an improvement in training , but it has a glaring weakness of only requiring 3 months of IR during the first 3 years of residency and so you have minimal clinical exposure for a long period of time and there is no doubt you will be rusty seeing patients, doing physical exams, etc. One of the posters on this forum stated that one of the programs had a continuity clinic throughout the entire residency, others such as UVA or U Michigan incorporate far more IR and clinical rotations in the first 3 years (ICU, vascular surgery etc), others encourage moonlighting in ER/urgent care etc. This is training in evolution and there will be some significant growing pains and lessons learned. Having said that I do think the integrated training is a great improvement from my more traditional training.

As far as hiring IR, I would personally take a trainee from certain programs as I know they can handle anything that is thrown at them. (e.g. Miami Vascular Institute).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
NP. Just a disclaimer, take my list with some caveats - I would say that this list is compiled based on conversations w/ attendings and my experience being involved in the IR world for the past 2+ years. There are many that would argue for example that Yale should be Tier 1 (recent recruitment of strong names in IO) or that MGH should be Tier 3 (historically a poor IR department). However, MGH DR is world class and there have been recent changes to the IR department (bumping it up) and
Yale IR has a reputation for malignancy and weak clinical training and low-end-procedure-heavy IR with miserable fellows (bumping it down). Rankings are obviously subjective to an extent and you should choose based on your own research and experience.

I don't think you understood they were being sarcastic.
 
For University of Michigan, who is the program director? I thought it was Dr. Khaja all this time but now I see Dr. Saad when I look back.

In my interview Khaja he said he was IR pd and Bailey was DR pd. They're associate pd's for each other programs.
 
Bad news for those of us ranking a fair amount DR and IR. Just found out that if you have more than 20 separate rank positions in the NRMP system, you get charged an extra $30 per rank spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Bad news for those of us ranking a fair amount DR and IR. Just found out that if you have more than 20 separate rank positions in the NRMP system, you get charged an extra $30 per rank spot.

Encountered this same problem a few days ago... there goes another couple hundred dollars...
 
I don't know about you guys... but I've been constantly flipping back and forth between all the programs. I feel so lost... making decisions is definitely not my strength.
 
I don't know about you guys... but I've been constantly flipping back and forth between all the programs. I feel so lost... making decisions is definitely not my strength.

Making the list got easier once I started ranking programs based on where I want to live and practice in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Making the list got easier once I started ranking programs based on where I want to live and practice in the future.
I second this, especially if your heart is set on a career in private practice.
Here is a fun exercise, let's try to rank the IR/DR programs into tiers based on:
1) IR prestige, Faculty/Research output, Clinical IR training,
2) (much less so) DR Prestige
and
3) excluding location (everyone has different preferences)

In no particular order:
Tier 1
UCLA, Stanford, UMich, Sinai, Penn, Vanderbilt, UVA, UWash Seattle, MCW, Northwestern, MUSC


Tier 2
UCSD, UCSF, U Colorado, Yale, Emory, Rush,NYP Columbia, NYP Cornell, NYU, MGH, OHSU, Brown, Jefferson, WashU, BID, Brigham, UIC, Maine Medical Center, Albany, MD Anderson, Christiana Care, Duke, OHSU, Penn State, Temple, UTSW, USC

Tier 3
UPMC, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Loma Linda, Mayo, UF, USF, Iowa, Kansas, LSU, Henry Ford, Beaumont, Minnesota, Mary Hitchcock / NH, Montefiore, Hofstra, OSU, Einstein PA, Utah

Yea I'd dispute a lot of this list. I met an IR fellow somewhere who did his DR at Vanderbilt and his description of the IR department was very.... bottom tier worthy. Rush is definitely tier 1 imo. UTSW and UPMC are almost identical so don't know why those would be in different tiers. Henry Ford does more prostate embolizations than any place I visited so don't think they should be tier 3. Columbia has you spending 1/3 of the time in their mid town clinic where it was painfully obvious the fellow there doesn't have much autonomy (not to mention IR does Botox and juvederm). I guess it's a matter of opinion at the end of the day, but it's difficult to tier institutions. Not to mention how departments undergo big changes periodically.
 
Rank list certified. damn, terrifying. Good luck everyone!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Rank list certified. damn, terrifying. Good luck everyone!

What did you guys end up doing with regards to IR/DR and DR? I ended up alternating between IR/DR and DR at my preferred locations. For me, specific institutions and resources were more important than getting the integrated track from the get go.
 
i think there's no right answer - some people might really want IR and rank IR first.
others might rank by programs. But I think we can all agree - yale is on the bottom of our lists!

PS - i am ranking by program. would rather go to a good radiology program than a lower level IR
 
Last edited:
Most students I've talked to are ranking their top IR/DR programs at the top, then their top DR programs, then their lower-tiered IR/DR programs, and finally their lower-tiered DR programs.

For example:
MGH IR/DR
BWH IR/DR
Hopkins IR/DR
MGH DR
BWH DR
Hopkins DR
Dartmouth IR/DR
Yale IR/DR
Dartmouth DR
Yale DR
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Most students I've talked to are ranking their top IR/DR programs at the top, then their top DR programs, then their lower-tiered IR/DR programs, and finally their lower-tiered DR programs.

For example:
MGH IR/DR
BWH IR/DR
Hopkins IR/DR
MGH DR
BWH DR
Hopkins DR
Dartmouth IR/DR
Yale IR/DR
Dartmouth DR
Yale DR

I did something similar, top 5 was IR and the rest is a mix of DR and IR programs.
 
We're talking so much about ranking IR programs. Maybe it would be easier to do two lists for this IR ranking system:
1. IR clinical training. &
2. IR prestige/fancy name + Research

There are other sources for DR rankings so we can ignore that for now.

Clinical:
Tier 1 (Programs that do almost everything including PAD at main campus (Not VA)): Michigan, Sinai, UVA, MCW, MUSC, Yale, Rush, Brown, Maine, UFlorida Jax, USF, Christiana, Kaiser. There are probably more and adding them would be useful.

Tier 2 (Programs that do some things): other programs

IR national swag:
Tier 1: Stanford, Michigan, Sinai, Penn, Vandy, UVA, U Wash, Dotter, MCW, Northwestern, U Colorado, Yale, MGH, WashU, UCLA. Add more please

This is just a starting point. Feel free to debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Most students I've talked to are ranking their top IR/DR programs at the top, then their top DR programs, then their lower-tiered IR/DR programs, and finally their lower-tiered DR programs.

Actually, you're exactly right. In the end I had a few top IR/DR places, and then alternated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What did you guys end up doing with regards to IR/DR and DR? I ended up alternating between IR/DR and DR at my preferred locations. For me, specific institutions and resources were more important than getting the integrated track from the get go.

That's a solid approach. Out of the IR programs I interviewed at, there were 9 I felt I could get the type of training I wanted. I only ranked those 9 select IR programs followed by 11 DR programs (including some at the same institutions I applied to IR but also some with strong IR programs who didn't offer IR/DR this year)
 
From SIR this week:
Over 500 applicants
120 integrated IR spots

My guess is there's going to be 50 independent spots when all is said and done. (It's an absolute certainty that there won't be more independent spots than integrated.) So 300+ of med students who applied to IR/DR are never going to practice IR.

I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: if you're committed to IR, you should rank all your IR/DRs first, and then only rank DR. I'm sure some of you will be very strong residents and will get away with alternating IR and IR/DR, but statistically it's the wrong move for most medical students.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I beg to disagree with the above post. When I was a first year resident, 3 people out of my class wanted to do IR. Now I am the only person. There is consistently around 220-270 or so people in the last few years actually apply to IR fellowships.

This mean statistically, assuming med students are similar over time, a big percentage of the med students currently wanting to go into IR naturally decide upon DR
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
OK, let's say your numbers are right. Lets say out of the 400 students who don't match into IR/DR, only 1/3 end up wanting to do IR. Now you're at 133 students who want to apply to IR. I guarantee you there won't be 133 independent residency spots. No way in hell. There are 250 fellowship spots right now. 120 IR/DR residency positions = 240 IR trainees (120 PGY5 and 120 PGY6). If they were to add 133 independent positions, you'd effectively be increasing the number of IR trainees from 250 to 373. Do the math.

You can convince yourself otherwise all you want. The fact is that the best chance of getting into IR is through the IR/DR residency. And that was the whole point of creating the IR/DR residency in the first place. The integrated IR/DR residency is the NEW STANDARD. The other pathway (ESIR+independent) is only the "backup" system. It's why SIR told all the programs to get their IR/DR accredited first. It's only in the last few months that we even started getting some independent programs accredited. The independent residency is the backup plan for SIR and the backup plan for most programs. And that's exactly why SIR encouraged students to apply to DR programs... as a backup. Not as a primary means of getting into IR.

Maybe you're a good candidate and you're going to go to a good residency that will give you a great chance of getting an independent residency spot. Good for you. But that doesn't change the fact that most students are statistically worse off matching at a DR program and hoping to get into IR, than getting into an IR/DR program off the bat. This is indisputable.


I beg to disagree with the above post. When I was a first year resident, 3 people out of my class wanted to do IR. Now I am the only person. There is consistently around 220-270 or so people in the last few years actually apply to IR fellowships.

This mean statistically, assuming med students are similar over time, a big percentage of the med students currently wanting to go into IR naturally decide upon DR
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Fab5Hill33 I also disagree with some of what you said. I think your mistake is in how you are counting "IR Trainees." What you should be counting is, how many IRs are being produced each year into the market. Right now it is that 250 number. That will continue in the future if not increase slightly.

The question is, how many IR pgy6 positions will there be six years from now? I guarantee you there will be at least 250, which in our case will be 120 integrated and at least 130 independent.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top