My experience applying to residency in Interventional Radiology (IR/DR)

[Naijaba]

Hey all, I'm posting this here because much of what I wrote is applicable to DR just as much as IR. It's a long article; I wrote more than I thought I would, and yet still want to write more. Done is better than perfect, so here it is: My experience applying to residency in Interventional Radiology (IR/DR). Hopefully it will help guide future applicants and provide insight into this whole process. I welcome comments, questions and suggestions for improvement.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

If I were you, I would remove the bits about this UC Irvine attending and their lifestyle choice...just seem a bit too personal, and may or may not be something they want to be known by.

 

[qwerty89]

All these med students with their newfound love of IR. 10 years ago you couldnt give an IR fellowship away and now its super competitive, yet the day to day of IR practice has hardly changed. IR is being oversold to applicants. Its a good field, but don't be under the impression that you will be in the endovascular suite all day long in the real world.

"The Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) recognized the impact of patient control on the future of IR, and proposed an integrated residency. The cornerstones of the residency are additional IR training (two years vs. one), mandatory ICU rotations and clinic work. The modern IR sees patients in clinic and admits patients to their own service. IR residents will manage the IR service just like surgical residents. The difference between the IR residency and a surgical residency is that the first three years are spent learning diagnostic radiology. Being the whole physician for a patient allows IRs to retain their turf while providing better patient care."

Yep makes sense now. Definitely being oversold.

And the "whole physician" and "better patient care" sounds like it came from a NP seminar or a DO school brochure.

After awhile you learn to recognize the academic BS.

I'm not saying IR can't do these things. But changing attitudes, training methods and especially referral patterns is easier said than done. And these changes happen over decades. The current IR applicant will not graduate residency in a whole new IR world. Its gonna be basically the same as today.

Why didnt CT surgeons learn how to cath patients? Wouldn't have mattered. Referral patterns are such that cardiologists get the patient first. If they learn how to do it and it reimburses well, they will do it. Same for much of Cardiac Nucs and even Echo in the past.

Endovascular work? Vascular surgery and Interventional Cards have the referral base.

NeuroIR? Same but with neurosurgeons.

EDIT: "Interventional cardiology was another option, but I’m not a fan of rounding and prolonged notes (present article aside). "

You don't like rounding? As in following up with your patients post-procedure? And yet you envision running a service like a surgery resident?

 

[Naijaba]

If I were you, I would remove the bits about this UC Irvine attending and their lifestyle choice...just seem a bit too personal, and may or may not be something they want to be known by.

Sounds reasonable, I wasn't sure about that part. It just stood out to me. I've removed it for now, and will write more about the experience than the person.

 

[Naijaba]

All these med students with their newfound love of IR. 10 years ago you couldnt give an IR fellowship away and now its super competitive, yet the day to day of IR practice has hardly changed. IR is being oversold to applicants. Its a good field, but don't be under the impression that you will be in the endovascular suite all day long in the real world.

"The Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) recognized the impact of patient control on the future of IR, and proposed an integrated residency. The cornerstones of the residency are additional IR training (two years vs. one), mandatory ICU rotations and clinic work. The modern IR sees patients in clinic and admits patients to their own service. IR residents will manage the IR service just like surgical residents. The difference between the IR residency and a surgical residency is that the first three years are spent learning diagnostic radiology. Being the whole physician for a patient allows IRs to retain their turf while providing better patient care."

Yep makes sense now. Definitely being oversold.

And the "whole physician" and "better patient care" sounds like it came from a NP seminar or a DO school brochure.

After awhile you learn to recognize the academic BS.

I'm not saying IR can't do these things. But changing attitudes, training methods and especially referral patterns is easier said than done. And these changes happen over decades. The current IR applicant will not graduate residency in a whole new IR world. Its gonna be basically the same as today.

Why didnt CT surgeons learn how to cath patients? Wouldn't have mattered. Referral patterns are such that cardiologists get the patient first. If they learn how to do it and it reimburses well, they will do it. Same for much of Cardiac Nucs and even Echo in the past.

Endovascular work? Vascular surgery and Interventional Cards have the referral base.

NeuroIR? Same but with neurosurgeons.

EDIT: "Interventional cardiology was another option, but I’m not a fan of rounding and prolonged notes (present article aside). "

You hit the nail on the head. I tried to talk about the difference between the model envisioned by SIR and the day-to-day realities of many private practice IRs; e.g. running a clinical service vs. working as a "proceduralist".

You don't like rounding? As in following up with your patients post-procedure? And yet you envision running a service like a surgery resident?

There's a difference between medicine notes and surgical notes; it's a content difference that manifests as a major difference in size. For example, IM docs get reimbursed based on the number of review of systems they perform, effectively mandating longer notes that may/may provide useful informations.

 

[RadsFTW123]

You hit the nail on the head. I tried to talk about the difference between the model envisioned by SIR and the day-to-day realities of many private practice IRs; e.g. running a clinical service vs. working as a "proceduralist".



There's a difference between medicine notes and surgical notes; it's a content difference that manifests as a major difference in size. For example, IM docs get reimbursed based on the number of review of systems they perform, effectively mandating longer notes that may/may provide useful informations.

Right, but interventional cardiologists don't have to deal with that...

 

[OrangeJuice1111]

Nice post. Will be helpful to future applicants

 

[IRorBustguy]

Excellent write up. Fwiw, I still think you are an excellent DR candidate (probably top 5-10%) but everything you wrote confirms that DR is a better fit for you than IR

 

[DrfluffyMD]

Sounds reasonable, I wasn't sure about that part. It just stood out to me. I've removed it for now, and will write more about the experience than the person.

Glad to hear it. I've interviewed there for fellowship and was trying to find some bits and pieces to help with ranking, was a bit dumbfounded when I saw what you wrote....Maybe you can have a ranking of local people's attractiveness based on location in a separate article?

 

[Fab5Hill33]

Just another bitter diagnostic radiologist.

I am in the real world. And yes, you can be in the IR suite the majority (80%) of the time.

You are clearly grossly misinformed about the history of Cardiology. CT surgeons could have learned caths, but they chose not to. It had nothing to do with the referral base.

You should show a little more respect for your IR colleagues and what we're doing and aiming to do in the coming years. Without IR, DR is just a commodity. Any private practice radiologist will tell you the same mantra: DR makes the money, IR gets/keeps the contracts. You better hope you have a good IR group that is clinically based and trying to grow their foothold in the hospital. Without it, your job/radiology contract is going to be given to the next highest bidder. And the ACR has made sure that they're more diagnostic radiologists than the market needs.

You have way too much to worry about in diagnostic radiology to be trying to rain on the IR parade.

All these med students with their newfound love of IR. 10 years ago you couldnt give an IR fellowship away and now its super competitive, yet the day to day of IR practice has hardly changed. IR is being oversold to applicants. Its a good field, but don't be under the impression that you will be in the endovascular suite all day long in the real world.

"The Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) recognized the impact of patient control on the future of IR, and proposed an integrated residency. The cornerstones of the residency are additional IR training (two years vs. one), mandatory ICU rotations and clinic work. The modern IR sees patients in clinic and admits patients to their own service. IR residents will manage the IR service just like surgical residents. The difference between the IR residency and a surgical residency is that the first three years are spent learning diagnostic radiology. Being the whole physician for a patient allows IRs to retain their turf while providing better patient care."

Yep makes sense now. Definitely being oversold.

And the "whole physician" and "better patient care" sounds like it came from a NP seminar or a DO school brochure.

After awhile you learn to recognize the academic BS.

I'm not saying IR can't do these things. But changing attitudes, training methods and especially referral patterns is easier said than done. And these changes happen over decades. The current IR applicant will not graduate residency in a whole new IR world. Its gonna be basically the same as today.

Why didnt CT surgeons learn how to cath patients? Wouldn't have mattered. Referral patterns are such that cardiologists get the patient first. If they learn how to do it and it reimburses well, they will do it. Same for much of Cardiac Nucs and even Echo in the past.

Endovascular work? Vascular surgery and Interventional Cards have the referral base.

NeuroIR? Same but with neurosurgeons.

EDIT: "Interventional cardiology was another option, but I’m not a fan of rounding and prolonged notes (present article aside). "

You don't like rounding? As in following up with your patients post-procedure? And yet you envision running a service like a surgery resident?

 

[tco]

Just another bitter diagnostic radiologist.

I am in the real world. And yes, you can be in the IR suite the majority (80%) of the time.

You are clearly grossly misinformed about the history of Cardiology. CT surgeons could have learned caths, but they chose not to. It had nothing to do with the referral base.

You should show a little more respect for your IR colleagues and what we're doing and aiming to do in the coming years. Without IR, DR is just a commodity. Any private practice radiologist will tell you the same mantra: DR makes the money, IR gets/keeps the contracts. You better hope you have a good IR group that is clinically based and trying to grow their foothold in the hospital. Without it, your job/radiology contract is going to be given to the next highest bidder. And the ACR has made sure that they're more diagnostic radiologists than the market needs.

You have way too much to worry about in diagnostic radiology to be trying to rain on the IR parade.

Really? Really? The first set of highlighted text was because I literally laughed out loud when you were so hypocritical in nearly the same breath.

The second - why are volumes so completely out of control, then? We're doing more studies now than ever, with less quality reads, and still can't keep up. We over read every trauma CT that comes into our hospital, and the PP rads often miss significant findings. I feel it's directly related to the pressure to read more.

 

[IRorBustguy]

Really? Really? The first set of highlighted text was because I literally laughed out loud when you were so hypocritical in nearly the same breath.

The second - why are volumes so completely out of control, then? We're doing more studies now than ever, with less quality reads, and still can't keep up. We over read every trauma CT that comes into our hospital, and the PP rads often miss significant findings. I feel it's directly related to the pressure to read more.

we should def farm out abroad and increase residency spots to keep up with the volume. </sarcasm>

 

[IR_2016]

Back on topic:

@Naijaba thank you for the wonderful post! Will be reading this thoroughly this coming week. Quick question, after skimming through the blog I noticed a part where you mention all of the interviews that you received. I'm assuming that the dates listed next to each program is the date that the program extended you the interview. Which month contained the bulk of the available dates to actually book your interview (for IR and DR)? Knowing this will help students a lot with scheduling 4th year, thanks!

 

[IRorBustguy]

Back on topic:

@Naijaba thank you for the wonderful post! Will be reading this thoroughly this coming week. Quick question, after skimming through the blog I noticed a part where you mention all of the interviews that you received. I'm assuming that the dates listed next to each program is the date that the program extended you the interview. Which month contained the bulk of the available dates to actually book your interview (for IR and DR)? Knowing this will help students a lot with scheduling 4th year, thanks!

november/dec for central/eastern programs, jan/early feb for western programs (ie UCs)

 

[pDeluxe]

I like the model of performing procedures 3-4 days per week, with the remaining 1-2 days devoted to engineering or research. The new model of IR places more weight on clinical responsibilities and effectively reduces the number of research days per week. As mentioned earlier, I’m not sure if such a model is even feasible in private practice where IRs typically perform 5-10 procedures per day, 5 days per week.

Please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the current IR models are ~60% IR 40% DR in pp... which on a 5 day work week would be the equivalent of 3 days procedures 2 days reading. Further, with the push to make IR more clinical, with dedicated outpatient clinic and rounds, would eat into the IR dedicated time without touching the DR requirements.

In effect, a pp IR guy who was previously doing 100% procedures on MWF and reads on TTh would be moving toward doing 50% procedures and 50% clinic+rounds across MWF, still doing reads TTh.

(Ofc, yes it depends on specific setups, but in general...)

 

[LurkerOnHigh]

You said - "I can, of course, apply to IR fellowship down the road". Actually you can't. The IR fellowship will no longer exist after June 30, 2020. It is replaced by the IR-Independent residency.

The next IR fellowship recruitment cycle for entry into the program July 1, 2019 is it.

 

[rufaterd]

Very transparent...but not sure why you said no midwest programs interviewed you. UMich, UPMC, WashU are all Midwest programs.

I'm interested to know what the effect of training in two places (dr then ir fellowship) vs integrated IR at one institution (even if it's at a really strong IR and DR program) will be on job placement.

 

[Fab5Hill33]

1. I'm simply responding in kind. If someone is going to troll a thread that was created to discuss the IR/DR residency -- then it's only fair to put them in their place.

2. Volumes are not out of control. Imaging Utilization Trends and Reimbursement | Diagnostic Imaging

Really? Really? The first set of highlighted text was because I literally laughed out loud when you were so hypocritical in nearly the same breath.

The second - why are volumes so completely out of control, then? We're doing more studies now than ever, with less quality reads, and still can't keep up. We over read every trauma CT that comes into our hospital, and the PP rads often miss significant findings. I feel it's directly related to the pressure to read more.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

Very transparent...but not sure why you said no midwest programs interviewed you. UMich, UPMC, WashU are all Midwest programs.

I'm interested to know what the effect of training in two places (dr then ir fellowship) vs integrated IR at one institution (even if it's at a really strong IR and DR program) will be on job placement.

I think the beauty currently afforded by training at different institution is contact at both geographical area when looking for jobs.

 

[tco]

You said - "I can, of course, apply to IR fellowship down the road". Actually you can't. The IR fellowship will no longer exist after June 30, 2020. It is replaced by the IR-Independent residency.

The next IR fellowship recruitment cycle for entry into the program July 1, 2019 is it.

There will always be a route to get people who don't do the IR independent residency into an IR position (via a fellowship type program - ESIR plus one year or a two year fellowship), but what the hell do I know? That's just what Dr. Sabri told me when I asked him point blank.

 

[tco]

1. I'm simply responding in kind. If someone is going to troll a thread that was created to discuss the IR/DR residency -- then it's only fair to put them in their place.

2. Volumes are not out of control. Imaging Utilization Trends and Reimbursement | Diagnostic Imaging

You feel that being insulting to an entire group of your colleagues is appropriate to "put (a poster) in their place?" You're fun.

That article you posted is nearly three years old. Also, what the hell are their sources? It looks like it's just some kind of editorial article. Laughable source. Just as valid as what I'm about to post...

Most Radiologists who I've talked to about the subject have a consensus that the trend has changed in the last three years, at least at my residency institution.

I've talked to IM and ER attendings who I'm fairly close with who still work at the medical school I attended, and they feel they need to use imaging at an increasing rate to keep up with patient volumes non-patient care related issues. Plus, imaging is much more readily available now. Most institutions (academic, at least) have 24 hour MRI techs and US techs on site. That was never the case until recently.

 

[IRorBustguy]

There will always be a route to get people who don't do the IR independent residency into an IR position (via a fellowship type program - ESIR plus one year or a two year fellowship), but what the hell do I know? That's just what Dr. Sabri told me when I asked him point blank.

Sabri is a great guy, but they also filled internally lol. lesson is - if you want to land a top IR spot, go to a DR program with a top IR fellowship/residency.

 

[tco]

Sabri is a great guy, but they also filled internally lol. lesson is - if you want to land a top IR spot, go to a DR program with a top IR fellowship/residency.

He also was involved in creating the DR/IR path, so I feel he knows a little bit about it.

 

[Fab5Hill33]

I am a board certified radiologist and a partner in a large practice - where I do diagnostic work in addition to IR. I've been in practice for nearly 10 years - and judging by your handle info, I've been in practice longer than you (for all I know you're just a resident). You gotta do better than "most radiologists I've talked to..." or "my BFFs in IM and ER told me something else"

The article I posted quotes 2 other peer reviewed journal articles including one from JACR.

Here's another article from AJR: Inpatient imaging utilization: trends of the past decade. - PubMed - NCBI
"CONCLUSION: After decades of continued rise, imaging utilization for inpatients significantly decreased by most measures between FY 2009 and FY 2012. Future studies to evaluate the contribution of various factors to this decline, including efforts to reduce inappropriate use of imaging and concerns about potential harms of radiation exposure, may be helpful in optimizing imaging utilization and resource planning."

Yes, the articles are 3-4 years old, but they are the latest data available as it does take a few year to compile and analyze data. Any physician who knows anything about utilization data, whether it's in the OR or in radiology, knows that is always the case.

Please just stop. It's great that you're busy. It's good for your practice -- or if you're a resident -- for your training. But the facts are the facts.

You feel that being insulting to an entire group of your colleagues is appropriate to "put (a poster) in their place?" You're fun.

That article you posted is nearly three years old. Also, what the hell are their sources? It looks like it's just some kind of editorial article. Laughable source. Just as valid as what I'm about to post...

Most Radiologists who I've talked to about the subject have a consensus that the trend has changed in the last three years, at least at my residency institution.

I've talked to IM and ER attendings who I'm fairly close with who still work at the medical school I attended, and they feel they need to use imaging at an increasing rate to keep up with patient volumes non-patient care related issues. Plus, imaging is much more readily available now. Most institutions (academic, at least) have 24 hour MRI techs and US techs on site. That was never the case until recently.

 

[Light at end of tunnel]

I am a board certified radiologist and a partner in a large practice - where I do diagnostic work in addition to IR. I've been in practice for nearly 10 years - and judging by your handle info, I've been in practice longer than you (for all I know you're just a resident). You gotta do better than "most radiologists I've talked to..." or "my BFFs in IM and ER told me something else"

The article I posted quotes 2 other peer reviewed journal articles including one from JACR.

Here's another article from AJR: Inpatient imaging utilization: trends of the past decade. - PubMed - NCBI
"CONCLUSION: After decades of continued rise, imaging utilization for inpatients significantly decreased by most measures between FY 2009 and FY 2012. Future studies to evaluate the contribution of various factors to this decline, including efforts to reduce inappropriate use of imaging and concerns about potential harms of radiation exposure, may be helpful in optimizing imaging utilization and resource planning."

Yes, the articles are 3-4 years old, but they are the latest data available as it does take a few year to compile and analyze data. Any physician who knows anything about utilization data, whether it's in the OR or in radiology, knows that is always the case.

Please just stop. It's great that you're busy. It's good for your practice -- or if you're a resident -- for your training. But the facts are the facts.

You're coming off as a bit of a bully, and a bit condescending as well.

 

[Fab5Hill33]

I'm sure I am. And I wish I didn't have to be.

It's just too bad there are people trying to throw shade on IR in a thread titled "My experience applying to residency in interventional radiology"

You're coming off as a bit of a bully, and a bit condescending as well.

 

[tco]

I am a board certified radiologist and a partner in a large practice - where I do diagnostic work in addition to IR. I've been in practice for nearly 10 years - and judging by your handle info, I've been in practice longer than you (for all I know you're just a resident). You gotta do better than "most radiologists I've talked to..." or "my BFFs in IM and ER told me something else"

The article I posted quotes 2 other peer reviewed journal articles including one from JACR.

Here's another article from AJR: Inpatient imaging utilization: trends of the past decade. - PubMed - NCBI
"CONCLUSION: After decades of continued rise, imaging utilization for inpatients significantly decreased by most measures between FY 2009 and FY 2012. Future studies to evaluate the contribution of various factors to this decline, including efforts to reduce inappropriate use of imaging and concerns about potential harms of radiation exposure, may be helpful in optimizing imaging utilization and resource planning."

Yes, the articles are 3-4 years old, but they are the latest data available as it does take a few year to compile and analyze data. Any physician who knows anything about utilization data, whether it's in the OR or in radiology, knows that is always the case.

Please just stop. It's great that you're busy. It's good for your practice -- or if you're a resident -- for your training. But the facts are the facts.

The facts are that volumes are increasing at an absurd pace. Another friend of mine who is in PP in Orlando routinely reads upwards of 250-300 studies during his 14 hour ER shifts. You think that's okay? You think that's safe? He sure doesn't. As residents, we routinely read 200 studies per night. Many of which are inpatients and won't be read by an attending until the next day. Again, do you think that's safe? I don't.

Oh, Almighty Board Certified Radiologist and Partner in a Large Practice, you've just admitted that what I've said is a viable theory with the bolded text. Don't know why you're taking this so personally.

I'm sure I am. And I wish I didn't have to be.

It's just too bad there are people trying to throw shade on IR in a thread titled "My experience applying to residency in interventional radiology"

The truth is that you don't have to be. You're just being an extra douche because someone disagrees with your infinite wisdom and called you out on your original doucheness.

I couldn't care less what the OP said. My issue has nothing to do with the article or you disagreeing with it. Your general attitude is deplorable, and this is the last I'll respond to you.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

The facts are that volumes are increasing at an absurd pace. Another friend of mine who is in PP in Orlando routinely reads upwards of 250-300 studies during his 14 hour ER shifts. You think that's okay? You think that's safe? He sure doesn't. As residents, we routinely read 200 studies per night. Many of which are inpatients and won't be read by an attending until the next day. Again, do you think that's safe? I don't.

Oh, Almighty Board Certified Radiologist and Partner in a Large Practice, you've just admitted that what I've said is a viable theory with the bolded text. Don't know why you're taking this so personally.



The truth is that you don't have to be. You're just being an extra douche because someone disagrees with your infinite wisdom and called you out on your original doucheness.

I couldn't care less what the OP said. My issue has nothing to do with the article or you disagreeing with it. Your general attitude is deplorable, and this is the last I'll respond to you.

You two could be both correct. There have been a lot of shift of work from private group to large hospitals. I am a resident and I've been seeing some absurd volume.

 

[Fab5Hill33]

The facts are that volumes are increasing at an absurd pace. Another friend of mine who is in PP in Orlando routinely reads upwards of 250-300 studies during his 14 hour ER shifts. You think that's okay? You think that's safe? He sure doesn't. As residents, we routinely read 200 studies per night. Many of which are inpatients and won't be read by an attending until the next day. Again, do you think that's safe? I don't.

Oh, Almighty Board Certified Radiologist and Partner in a Large Practice, you've just admitted that what I've said is a viable theory with the bolded text. Don't know why you're taking this so personally.

What are you talking about? Nobody is saying that reading 300 studies is safe. Stop displacing your own frustrations about your diagnostic radiology residency out on me... and on an IR/DR thread of all places.

I've posted 2 articles including one from AJR. I don't know why you're trying to fight the facts with your personal anecdotes.

It's nothing personal. A troll railroaded the thread, and I responded. Simple enough -- and in my opinion, justified.


The truth is that you don't have to be. You're just being an extra douche because someone disagrees with your infinite wisdom and called you out on your original doucheness.

OTOH, it's clear it's you who's taking it personally.


I couldn't care less what the OP said. My issue has nothing to do with the article or you disagreeing with it. Your general attitude is deplorable, and this is the last I'll respond to you.

Good.

 

[DJNYY]

Hey all, I'm posting this here because much of what I wrote is applicable to DR just as much as IR. It's a long article; I wrote more than I thought I would, and yet still want to write more. Done is better than perfect, so here it is: My experience applying to residency in Interventional Radiology (IR/DR). Hopefully it will help guide future applicants and provide insight into this whole process. I welcome comments, questions and suggestions for improvement.

Your posts are going to be invaluable for the next batch of students applying! Thanks for sharing and hope you love Uwash!

 

[neoevolution]

Is there any real difference between the IR-independent residency and the current IR fellowship?

 

[IRorBustguy]

Is there any real difference between the IR-independent residency and the current IR fellowship?

roughly 6 more months of IR, and 6 months of clinical rotations.

 

[neoevolution]

roughly 6 more months of IR, and 6 months of clinical rotations.

Oh, because of going from 1 year to 2 year? I guess what I meant to ask is what makes it a residency vs. being a fellowship?

 

[irwarrior]

There will be more clinical and ICU requirements and ultimately more standardization of what is required to become an IR. Currently there is tremendous amount of variability in IR training (both clinically and procedurally).

 

[Derv]

There will be more clinical and ICU requirements and ultimately more standardization of what is required to become an IR. Currently there is tremendous amount of variability in IR training (both clinically and procedurally).

As long as there is such a huge array in the scope of IR procedures from institution to institution there won't really be a huge standardization. Learning IR at a place which has no turf wars over PAD for example vs learning IR at a place with no Aortic work vs having both will be huge.

 

[Fab5Hill33]

It's not so much about standardization as it is about simply devoting more time to IR and getting more clinical exposure.

I'd also point out that variability in IR practice isn't QUITE as far off from the variability in surgery as most people think. There are some surgery programs that are a transplant center and do liver/kidney/heart etc and others that are not. Some programs are cancer centers and do lots of oncology surgery... and others don't. Some are big Whipple centers, some have a big thoracic/cardiac program, some do a lot of inflammatory bowel disease bowel reconstruction... and others don't much of these. No surgery resident will graduate seeing the same things, and all will come out with more experience in one versus another procedure. The difference is that surgery residents can go on to fellowships in each one of these things. I believe IR will as well at some point in the future. Maybe fellowships in vascular, IO, maybe women's health, etc. Just my 2 cents.

 

[RadInterest]

Nice post! Will surely be of help to future applicants!

 

[TorpedoVegas]

Thank you for this post. I found it extremely insightful and thorough, and it answered many questions I've had. Congratulations on matching to UW and good luck in your career!

 

[sudo]

Thanks for sharing your experience, @Naijaba

 

[Tiger100]

It's not so much about standardization as it is about simply devoting more time to IR and getting more clinical exposure.

I'd also point out that variability in IR practice isn't QUITE as far off from the variability in surgery as most people think. There are some surgery programs that are a transplant center and do liver/kidney/heart etc and others that are not. Some programs are cancer centers and do lots of oncology surgery... and others don't. Some are big Whipple centers, some have a big thoracic/cardiac program, some do a lot of inflammatory bowel disease bowel reconstruction... and others don't much of these. No surgery resident will graduate seeing the same things, and all will come out with more experience in one versus another procedure. The difference is that surgery residents can go on to fellowships in each one of these things. I believe IR will as well at some point in the future. Maybe fellowships in vascular, IO, maybe women's health, etc. Just my 2 cents.

There is a dedicated field for that and it is called vascular surgery.

 

[DrfluffyMD]

There is a dedicated field for that and it is called vascular surgery.

Oh boy....what about IO? What about TIPS, VS too?