Is radiology right for me?

[Marlonex]

The problem with me is that I love imaging and all the things radiologists do (ct scans, x-rays...) However, it is really important to me to have some patient contact. Is there any other speciality where you use all these imaging scans but sometimes see your patients?? I read about radiation oncologists; is there anything else?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[G0S2]

The problem with me is that I love imaging and all the things radiologists do (ct scans, x-rays...) However, it is really important to me to have some patient contact. Is there any other speciality where you use all these imaging scans but sometimes see your patients?? I read about radiation oncologists; is there anything else?

You use all these imaging scans and sometimes see your patients on IM.

 

[hopefulmed]

hehe, remind me of this commercial. Sorry I'm not contributing. Have you consider IR, or mammo?

 

[keye]

Ophthalmology is a very visual field like Radiology, you are looking behind the patient's eyes, plus you get to interact with the patient. Great future demand.

 

[schan]

Radiology is a field that is focused on imaging scans.. but many other fields also have a significant portion of their field devoted to interpretation of images: cardiology, pathology, surgery, rad onc, dermatology, neurology, pulmonology, gastroenterology

of course many images may be in the form of color, path, scope, video, cardiac cath/echo etc.

 

[yaah]

The problem with me is that I love imaging and all the things radiologists do (ct scans, x-rays...) However, it is really important to me to have some patient contact. Is there any other speciality where you use all these imaging scans but sometimes see your patients?? I read about radiation oncologists; is there anything else?

Every premed loves lots of patient contact and has a hard time contemplating an existence without it. In part, this is from a complete lack of understanding of any field other than primary care or surgery. In part, it is from a Norman Rockwell like impression of an idealized but inaccurate view of what primary care actually is. When you are in a field like radiology (or pathology), oftentimes your "patient" is, by proxy, the physician ordering the test.

Why don't you see if you really actually do like it when you experience it? Why do you need to see your patients all the time? Lots of people find they are really not as enthralled with patient care as they think they should be. It doesn't make you a bad person, just like being enthralled with disimpacting a constipated grandmother doesn't make you a better person. In the end, everything that anyone does in health care is about the patient, whether it is face to face or not is not so important.

 

[MWillie]

Patient contact is good for 2 hours a day at most. That's why I'm going into radiology.

 

[Mariah246]

just like being enthralled with disimpacting a constipated grandmother doesn't make you a better person.

There's probably a special place cordoned off in heaven for people like these.

Obviously a location I won't be frequenting. Ever.

 

[Doctor]

Every premed loves lots of patient contact and has a hard time contemplating an existence without it.

Not me! I'm an introvert at heart, and am trying to consider fields where patient contact will be kept to a minimum. So maybe almost every premed, but not every premed.

 

[shocker]

Not me! I'm an introvert at heart, and am trying to consider fields where patient contact will be kept to a minimum. So maybe almost every premed, but not every premed.

Check out Pathology if you are a visually oriented person and don't mind microscopes. I looked into it but I couldn't handle the microscope part. It is an awesome field that requires a lot of knowledge. Also, the lifestyle is sweet. A friend of mine is telling me he will be 8-5, no weekends, home-call as a resident and with NO Prelim Year. I am sure there are some hard residency programs but on the whole it seems pretty laid back. I can't speak to attending life, but I imagine it is relatively benign.

Not to mention I think that they are fairly immune to other specialties trying to take from their pot. I can't think of many people that dip into path stuff, maybe some dermatologists?

I always saw Radiology and Pathology as quite similar, just at the macro and micro level respectively. I chose macro. Radiology does require more work and some programs that interviewed at had fairly brutal call schedules during the R2-R3 years. But, I know that the call will help so I will just get through it.

 

[Taurus]

Check out Pathology if you are a visually oriented person and don't mind microscopes. I looked into it but I couldn't handle the microscope part. It is an awesome field that requires a lot of knowledge. Also, the lifestyle is sweet. A friend of mine is telling me he will be 8-5, no weekends, home-call as a resident and with NO Prelim Year. I am sure there are some hard residency programs but on the whole it seems pretty laid back. I can't speak to attending life, but I imagine it is relatively benign.

Path and rads are similar. However, major difference is that rads do procedures.

Other difference is that finding a job in path is much harder.

 

[shocker]

Path and rads are similar. However, major difference is that rads do procedures.

Other difference is that finding a job in path is much harder.

Agreed. But I see the Radiology jobs tightening in the near future. I think that it has already begun to get harder and will probably get worse before it gets better: self-referral, continued fight for territory, medicare cuts, new ABR schedule on the horizon, etc.

I am quite clueless regarding the job market for Path, I would be interested to hear about it though.

 

[shocker]

Taurus, I really appreciate your diligence regarding the mid-level push. It is very hard to know that you are making perfect sense about a topic yet people just think they can brush it aside.

DNP does not equal MD. They should go to medical school if they want their patients to call them doctor, period.

 

[Taurus]

Agreed. But I see the Radiology jobs tightening in the near future. I think that it has already begun to get harder and will probably get worse before it gets better: self-referral, continued fight for territory, medicare cuts, new ABR schedule on the horizon, etc.

I am quite clueless regarding the job market for Path, I would be interested to hear about it though.

How the job market sucks for path is all over the path forum. Here are a few threads:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=474978

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=504546

Sure, rad jobs probably will tighten. It's cyclical. There's one trend though that's not changing. Imaging is becoming more and more important in medicine. As long as that's true and new technology keeps coming out, rads is the place to be if you have to choose between rads and path.

 

[Taurus]

Taurus, I really appreciate your diligence regarding the mid-level push. It is very hard to know that you are making perfect sense about a topic yet people just think they can brush it aside.

DNP does not equal MD. They should go to medical school if they want their patients to call them doctor, period.

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who can see what they're up to.

I believe that the real savior for medicine is if the medical groups file a lawsuit to force DNP's and CRNA's to be regulated by the state boards of medicine. Convincing doctors to do anything is like herding cats. The nursing boards have every interest to see their groups expand into medicine as much as possible. Why are medical groups are sitting idly by while their profession is being raped by the nurses I don't know.

 

[Doublecortin]

How the job market sucks for path is all over the path forum. Here are a few threads:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=474978

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=504546

Sure, rad jobs probably will tighten. It's cyclical. There's one trend though that's not changing. Imaging is becoming more and more important in medicine. As long as that's true and new technology keeps coming out, rads is the place to be if you have to choose between rads and path.

 

[Mariah246]

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who can see what they're up to.

I believe that the real savior for medicine is if the medical groups file a lawsuit to force DNP's and CRNA's to be regulated by the state boards of medicine. Convincing doctors to do anything is like herding cats. The nursing boards have every interest to see their groups expand into medicine as much as possible. Why are medical groups are sitting idly by while their profession is being raped by the nurses I don't know.

I was given that WSJ link in your signature a while ago. Finally got around to reading it

I probably fall into that lax category of medical personnel (or more accurately, soon-to-be MD medical personnel) that isn't too concerned.

These DNP's appear to be targeting primary care work. The work that most medical students seem to shun if their grades and board scores are high enough.

So what's the issue? I can understand the slippery slope argument but I would be highly surprised if they made inroads into more complicated and procedure-driven fields like derm, cards, GI (the ones you listed in your sig) The sheer amount of pathophysiology and pharmacology to be considered in making clinical decisions for patients in those fields does not seem like something that can be imparted during a nursing residency.

Or am I deluding myself?

 

[Taurus]

I was given that WSJ link in your signature a while ago. Finally got around to reading it

I probably fall into that lax category of medical personnel (or more accurately, soon-to-be MD medical personnel) that isn't too concerned.

These DNP's appear to be targeting primary care work. The work that most medical students seem to shun if their grades and board scores are high enough.

So what's the issue? I can understand the slippery slope argument but I would be highly surprised if they made inroads into more complicated and procedure-driven fields like derm, cards, GI (the ones you listed in your sig) The sheer amount of pathophysiology and pharmacology to be considered in making clinical decisions for patients in those fields does not seem like something that can be imparted during a nursing residency.

Or am I deluding myself?

Why are medical students going into the specialties and shunning primary care? Because the income and lifestyles are better. Guess what? NP's and PA's are doing the same for the same reasons. That's the trend we're seeing for both physicians and midlevels.

Does anyone here think that DNP's would be happy with primary care? Heck no. They pay is lousy and so is the lifestyle. They will try to get into the specialties. Either by trying to get into medical residency, creating their own, or just creating some weekend courses and certifying themselves.

That's exactly what the CRNA's tried to do with pain medicine in Louisiana. They tried to convince people that by taking two weekend classes they're qualified to do pain medicine, which is a fellowship for following residency for anesthesiology, PM&R, or neurology. It took two lawsuits before they were formally banned to do so.

http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2008/02-08/stateBeat02-08.html

Don't be surprised if the nurses do the same for derm, cards, GI and whatever other lucrative field they can get their grubby little fingers on.

The best solution to stop all of this nonsense is to force the NP's and CRNA's under the oversight of boards of medicine. It's obvious that they're practicing medicine and laughing in our faces when they say they're just practicing nursing. Which medical group out there will have the balls to do it?

 

[gman33]

Why are medical students going into the specialties and shunning primary care? Because the income and lifestyles are better. Guess what? NP's and PA's are doing the same for the same reasons. That's the trend we're seeing for both physicians and midlevels.

Does anyone here think that DNP's would be happy with primary care? Heck no. They pay is lousy and so is the lifestyle. They will try to get into the specialties. Either by trying to get into medical residency, creating their own, or just creating some weekend courses and certifying themselves.

That's exactly what the CRNA's tried to do with pain medicine in Louisiana. They tried to convince people that by taking two weekend classes they're qualified to do pain medicine, which is a fellowship for following residency for anesthesiology, PM&R, or neurology. It took two lawsuits before they were formally banned to do so.

http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2008/02-08/stateBeat02-08.html

Don't be surprised if the nurses do the same for derm, cards, GI and whatever other lucrative field they can get their grubby little fingers on.

The best solution to stop all of this nonsense is to force the NP's and CRNA's under the oversight of boards of medicine. It's obvious that they're practicing medicine and laughing in our faces when they say they're just practicing nursing. Which medical group out there will have the balls to do it?

Hey Taurus - I read the article in your sig.

"DNPs are the ideal candidates to fill the primary-care void and deliver a new, more comprehensive brand of care that starts with but goes well beyond conventional medical practice. In addition to expert diagnosis and treatment, DNP training places an emphasis on preventive care, risk reduction and promoting good health practices. These clinicians are peerless prevention specialists and coordinators of complex care. In other words, as a patient, you get the medical knowledge of a physician, with the added skills of a nursing professional."

Truly scary that someone could think this way.

 

[Taurus]

Truly scary that someone could think this way.

What's scarier is that someone can earn this degree online. How many people will have to suffer and die before this nonsense ends?

 

[Mariah246]

What's scarier is that someone can earn this degree online. How many people will have to suffer and die before this nonsense ends?

Dunno. But I do agree that after a couple of "accidents", this experiment will be put to a swift end.

 

[judu]

whatever--primary care is nonsensically easy. all you do is refer. who cares if some nurse wants to do it. it's not like we're afraid they'll take our jobs. we're begging foreign grads to come here already.

with regards to rads job market 'tightening up' -- that's a pretty arbitrary statement. i just started residency and i'm already getting e-mails for amazing jobs in major cities. and it's only increasing. look at a random primary care service in any hospital in america and you'll see the majority of the list waiting for scans or IR procedures. And as long as the procedures are new, the reimbursement isn't going anywhere. And it's not anything specific to radiology. The field is simply riding the tech boom. As long as that keeps going (and I don't see it stopping any time soon), new procedures, new technology, new machinery will keep coming out and radiology reimbursements will stay high.

reimbursements are decided by the congressional budget office which determines something called the sustainable growth rate (SGR). this rate is determined in turn by CBO meetings to discuss which procedures stay high and which drop. Orthopedics, cardiology and IR procedures seem to consistently stay high. Cards possibly because half of the people on the committee have had stents put in themselves and rads because the procedures ARE NEW. NEW procedures have a grace period before they lose their reimbursement. An appendectomy might take the same amount of time as an ultrasound guided paracentesis (or even longer), but the reimbursement is very different because the latter is far newer.

If you want patient contact, do IR. I won't throw in ubiquitous "there are several good threads on here already discussing these topics" .. but there are if you really care.

 

[m3unsure]

whatever--primary care is nonsensically easy. all you do is refer. who cares if some nurse wants to do it. it's not like we're afraid they'll take our jobs. we're begging foreign grads to come here already.

with regards to rads job market 'tightening up' -- that's a pretty arbitrary statement. i just started residency and i'm already getting e-mails for amazing jobs in major cities. and it's only increasing. look at a random primary care service in any hospital in america and you'll see the majority of the list waiting for scans or IR procedures. And as long as the procedures are new, the reimbursement isn't going anywhere. And it's not anything specific to radiology. The field is simply riding the tech boom. As long as that keeps going (and I don't see it stopping any time soon), new procedures, new technology, new machinery will keep coming out and radiology reimbursements will stay high.

reimbursements are decided by the congressional budget office which determines something called the sustainable growth rate (SGR). this rate is determined in turn by CBO meetings to discuss which procedures stay high and which drop. Orthopedics, cardiology and IR procedures seem to consistently stay high. Cards possibly because half of the people on the committee have had stents put in themselves and rads because the procedures ARE NEW. NEW procedures have a grace period before they lose their reimbursement. An appendectomy might take the same amount of time as an ultrasound guided paracentesis (or even longer), but the reimbursement is very different because the latter is far newer.

Well, good primary care is actually pretty hard or requires a good doc. I would say that IM/FP docs have to memorize far more stuff if they want to be good. Cookie cutters don't work in any field especially primary care (e.g. antibiotic resistance). Nurses don't know jack for the most part even the cards NP at my intern year program was just good at cards (so specialties are not protected). She ran around collecting labs and studies for the most part. I wouldn't want her single-handedly run MY management. Not saying she is a bad person, but her knowledge base doesn't equal that of an internist.

Anyway, what the other guy does is not necessarily easy? It's the tendency of specialties being arrogant about their contribution to medicine and therefore the downfall of doctors as a whole. Guess what most surgeons think they don't need a radiologist to do their reads and many who are good will actually ignore the impressions if it doesn't fit the clinical picture.

And in regards to reimbursement, if money tightens up, they will cut regardless of technology. There is going to be a point where Medicare can't fund the new tech and will just say it's not worth the added expense. That point is coming soon regardless of rad tech getting better. We are all f'ed until funding is kept up.

In the end, radiology is cool and I appreciate more than when I was a student so I am wondering if any former gas guys in rads right now could msg me about the process.

 

[Taurus]

And in regards to reimbursement, if money tightens up, they will cut regardless of technology. There is going to be a point where Medicare can't fund the new tech and will just say it's not worth the added expense. That point is coming soon regardless of rad tech getting better. We are all f'ed until funding is kept up.

In the end, radiology is cool and I appreciate more than when I was a student so I am wondering if any former gas guys in rads right now could msg me about the process.

And even if rads gets hit with lots of cuts, it's still worth it. It definitively has more buck for the effort than a lot of other specialties.

 

[MossPoh]

How many studies do you guys crank out on average per day? I was wondering if the creep upward was just at dad's gig, or if it was a common thing across the board. He was telling me that around 100 studies in a day was considered a pretty nice day. Now he is doing up to 275 a day when he works. It seems like other specialities are starting to think radiology is filled with robots...at least at my dad's hospital.