IR residencies impact

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

bond80009

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
50
Reaction score
3
Hi,
Are the new IR residencies taking spots away from DR residencies. Will the new IR residencies opening up make DR more competitive.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Unclear at this time. Some programs carved out spots from existing DR positions. Others have an overall increase in positions. My suspicion is it will create more radiologists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
It's not a 1 for 1 increase, but spots have gone up. Maybe a net increase in 20 spots or so. There aren't that many IR spots so hopefully not a huge effect. There are quite a few new programs opening up which is more concerning.

Likely the biggest effect of the IR residency will not be a huge revolution in the field of IR (I mean people can just start practicing more clinically, why do you need a new program to do that?), but further saturation and deterioration of DR. sad, but probably true.
 
.
 

Attachments

  • 2016.pdf
    857.6 KB · Views: 75
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not a 1 for 1 increase, but spots have gone up. Maybe a net increase in 20 spots or so. There aren't that many IR spots so hopefully not a huge effect. There are quite a few new programs opening up which is more concerning.

Likely the biggest effect of the IR residency will not be a huge revolution in the field of IR (I mean people can just start practicing more clinically, why do you need a new program to do that?), but further saturation and deterioration of DR. sad, but probably true.

definitely more than that. aren't there ~ 125 IR spots? net 20 increase would only mean a few programs are making IR spots without cutting DR, from what I've seen the majority of programs are just adding IR spots with no change in DR. I'd project more like 80 % of programs will be adding spots. Which makes no sense but they're still doing it anyway.
 
The majority are cutting DR to make room for IR. The exact number is unclear since all programs haven't been approved yet. My source is a PD buddy of mine who I did residency with. But it is just one PD's guess based on his conversations with other PD's.

definitely more than that. aren't there ~ 125 IR spots? net 20 increase would only mean a few programs are making IR spots without cutting DR, from what I've seen the majority of programs are just adding IR spots with no change in DR. I'd project more like 80 % of programs will be adding spots. Which makes no sense but they're still doing it anyway.
 
The majority are cutting DR to make room for IR. The exact number is unclear since all programs haven't been approved yet. My source is a PD buddy of mine who I did residency with. But it is just one PD's guess based on his conversations with other PD's.

I hope you're right but I have not seen the same
 
Both my former residency and current fellowship are cutting DR spots for the direct path. Same with most of the others I've heard. Northwestern is the only program I've heard of that is adding the direct spots separately without cutting DR, but that health system has grown a fair amount in 5 years so they may have been due to expand regardless
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I sure hope you're right. On the applicant interview thread, there are several other examples of places just adding spots (Cornell, Stanford, I know Vanderbilt added one I think)... I guess we will see when the match comes out. I know there are several new Sheridan-run programs opening in Florida, as well as another new one in Houston (and one coming in Austin soon).

Fab- your friends who are PDs, is jobs for trainees something that is a major priority that is discussed at nationwide conferences? I understand that it's very hard for people to cut spots, even if they know it's needed, but people adding new spots just seems really dumb. The rads job market is better but it's still much worse than most other specialties. I hope they don't see the current "just OK" market as a reason to expand.
 
Fab- your friends who are PDs, is jobs for trainees something that is a major priority that is discussed at nationwide conferences? I understand that it's very hard for people to cut spots, even if they know it's needed, but people adding new spots just seems really dumb. The rads job market is better but it's still much worse than most other specialties. I hope they don't see the current "just OK" market as a reason to expand.

I would guess that job market for trainees is not a major priority for PDs, particularly if it affects how much call their attending's need to take
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think they do discuss the graduate numbers at his IR meetings, I don't think they consider the DR numbers. Most academic IRs, rightly or wrongly, see IR/DR residencies as churning out clinically-based 100% IR practitioners. They see the DR part of the training as just experience to make them better IRs. I don't think they've considered how it might impact the DR job pool if some IR/DR people practice 50/50 intervention and diagnostic.

As far as the IR numbers:
I'm told the overall number of IR graduates per year might actually decrease. Let's say a program had 4 IR fellows per year. They're not going to have 4 IR/DR spots. Because that would mean 8 IR trainees at any given time in the department. That's simply too many for the IR department to handle and doesn't help with call ( Remember, you still have to have an IR attending on site during procedures, unlike DR. There's no "incentive" to just get more IR fellows and for the attendings to take less call). In our example, the program with 4 IR fellows will likely apply for 2 IR/DR spots which equates to 4 IR trainees at any given time (2 pgy5 and 2 pgy6). Even if they "add" a spot they'd still be at 3 IR/DR positions. So instead of 4 IR fellows graduating each year, they have only 2 or 3.



I sure hope you're right. On the applicant interview thread, there are several other examples of places just adding spots (Cornell, Stanford, I know Vanderbilt added one I think)... I guess we will see when the match comes out. I know there are several new Sheridan-run programs opening in Florida, as well as another new one in Houston (and one coming in Austin soon).

Fab- your friends who are PDs, is jobs for trainees something that is a major priority that is discussed at nationwide conferences? I understand that it's very hard for people to cut spots, even if they know it's needed, but people adding new spots just seems really dumb. The rads job market is better but it's still much worse than most other specialties. I hope they don't see the current "just OK" market as a reason to expand.
 
I think they do discuss the graduate numbers at his IR meetings, I don't think they consider the DR numbers. Most academic IRs, rightly or wrongly, see IR/DR residencies as churning out clinically-based 100% IR practitioners. They see the DR part of the training as just experience to make them better IRs. I don't think they've considered how it might impact the DR job pool if some IR/DR people practice 50/50 intervention and diagnostic.

As far as the IR numbers:
I'm told the overall number of IR graduates per year might actually decrease. Let's say a program had 4 IR fellows per year. They're not going to have 4 IR/DR spots. Because that would mean 8 IR trainees at any given time in the department. That's simply too many for the IR department to handle and doesn't help with call ( Remember, you still have to have an IR attending on site during procedures, unlike DR. There's no "incentive" to just get more IR fellows and for the attendings to take less call). In our example, the program with 4 IR fellows will likely apply for 2 IR/DR spots which equates to 4 IR trainees at any given time (2 pgy5 and 2 pgy6). Even if they "add" a spot they'd still be at 3 IR/DR positions. So instead of 4 IR fellows graduating each year, they have only 2 or 3.
I think we're going to see lots of dissatisfied IR grads eating up the 100% IR mantra during residency only to see the demand for that not meet their expectations. Lots of places just need mostly light IR with some good cases peppered in and people to cover call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You couldn't be more wrong about "mostly light IR". I can't begin to explain to you how hot the IR market is. Maybe not 100% IR, but many places need, and are desperate for, high-end IR work.

I think we're going to see lots of dissatisfied IR grads eating up the 100% IR mantra during residency only to see the demand for that not meet their expectations. Lots of places just need mostly light IR with some good cases peppered in and people to cover call.
 
You couldn't be more wrong about "mostly light IR". I can't begin to explain to you how hot the IR market is. Maybe not 100% IR, but many places need, and are desperate for, high-end IR work.
We can agree to disagree. Outside of major hospitals you aren't going to regularly be putting in TIPS, Y-90 etc. The clinicians punt these patients to a tertiary center
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We can agree to disagree. And I'm not trying to disparage when I ask this, but do you practice IR?

I have been in practice for about 10 years and I've worked at half-dozen hospitals ranging from 200 beds to the largest being about 500 beds, and I've done a TIPS in every one of them. I can't exactly say the same for Y-90 -- but mostly because I've only done that procedure for the last few years.

My own group, and most of my IR friends at other places who have recently hired, require that their new hires to be capable of the full spectrum of IR. An oncologist or a hepatologist at a small hospital doesn't want to refer their patient to a tertiary center for fear of losing business. They want their local IR to be able to perform the procedure.

Now if you're at a small hospital that doesn't have a full fledged oncology service, then you're right, it's unlikely to need the local rads to perform such procedures. But the fact of the matter is that the need for those procedures is growing by leaps and bounds. And if your group doesn't hire, well, that tertiary center that is getting the business does need more IRs to do high-end work. So the jobs are there.

Again, not every job is 100% IR. But many require you to be able to do high-end work. And there's enough of that work out there for the 200+ IR fellow graduates each year.


We can agree to disagree. Outside of major hospitals you aren't going to regularly be putting in TIPS, Y-90 etc. The clinicians punt these patients to a tertiary center
 
We can agree to disagree. And I'm not trying to disparage when I ask this, but do you practice IR?

I am not an IR.

I have been in practice for about 10 years and I've worked at half-dozen hospitals ranging from 200 beds to the largest being about 500 beds, and I've done a TIPS in every one of them. I can't exactly say the same for Y-90 -- but mostly because I've only done that procedure for the last few years.

We're affiliated with multiple hospitals within the same system of similar sizes to those. Perhaps this is due to their practice, but I think only two sites will do high end stuff because they have the needed available consultants to manage those patients not because the IR doc isn't capable at the smaller sites.

My own group, and most of my IR friends at other places who have recently hired, require that their new hires to be capable of the full spectrum of IR. An oncologist or a hepatologist at a small hospital doesn't want to refer their patient to a tertiary center for fear of losing business. They want their local IR to be able to perform the procedure.

Agree you should be capable upon graduation to do anything but my point was that your practice has a lot to do with what the referring docs are comfortable with treating and managing themselves. Even then the patients still end up at the tertiary care center for transplant evaluation or clinical trial enrollment.

Now if you're at a small hospital that doesn't have a full fledged oncology service, then you're right, it's unlikely to need the local rads to perform such procedures. But the fact of the matter is that the need for those procedures is growing by leaps and bounds. And if your group doesn't hire, well, that tertiary center that is getting the business does need more IRs to do high-end work. So the jobs are there.

There are lots of those small hospitals out there. They want coverage for the bread and butter IR stuff. Just enough stuff outside the scope of a generalist or Body guy with procedural experience.

Again, not every job is 100% IR. But many require you to be able to do high-end work. And there's enough of that work out there for the 200+ IR fellow graduates each year.

I agree there is work. IR has one of the better job markets in radiology although things are improving overall. My main statement is that just like any specialty, the practice at a training institution can vary drastically from the majority of community practice.
See bolded.
 
Last edited:
Top