This years IR match..

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
BeaHero said:
Anyone have an idea of what the numbers (step I, etc.) look like? Or will we have to wait until NRMP gives up charting outcomes?
Click to expand...
You mean IR fellowship? I thought the result isn't out until June. Also, step 1 is the key for IR match?
 
There were only 15 spots offered in the IR residency match this past year and apparently it was rather competitive. However, this year there has been a tremendous increase in programs offering the IR residency . I believe there are 44 IR residency programs already and with that several spots will likely be available. It is uncertain how competitive it will be. The IR residency will likely draw from a different pool as it is more surgical in nature and not as lifestyle friendly as radiology can be. Patient care and interactions as well as invasive procedures are a vital component of IR training and existence and the lifestyle reflects more of a surgical day to day existence.
 
still gonna be insanely competitive I bet.
 
Im assuming that it will be very competitive as well. However, there are still many unknowns. Firstly, although we have seen an increase in the number of programs offering an integrated IR residency, we don't have any indication of how many spots each of these programs will offer. Secondly, we don't know how many more programs will be offered by the time that applications open (SIRweb mentions that at least another 17 programs will be reviewed at their next meeting in September). Finally, there is the mysterious ESIR pathway... As of now there are only a handful of these programs approved. The requirements necessary for a program to meet the ESIR criteria are very reasonable (more than 500 procedures and 13 IR "related" rotations), however, as application deadlines are rapidly approaching for med students it is still largely unknown how many/which programs will be offering this pathway. So while I do agree that this should be a highly competitive match cohort, there are still huge question marks regarding the future of this pathway. It remains to be seen how this relative uncertainly will affect applicants desire to pursue these avenues. Thoughts?
 
IMO unless you never ever plan on doing diagnostic radiology in your career (assuming burnout and fatigue and whatever), you should do diagnostic residency and eventually migrate over to IR should you decide to go that way.

Pigeonholing yourself into IR early when you don't know the actual relationships of how IR interacts with all the other departments in the hospital seems risky to me. I'm at a top diagnostic program with a decent nonvascular IR service but an abysmal vascular IR service. Now with the IR residency brouhaha, abdominal and VIR now have merged and this has actually brought abdominal 's reputation down as the vascular attendings had such a bad reputation already. Their case volume went to crap and 2 fellows quit.

I would not recommend anyone match into our IR residency. DR, however, is still strong as ever, and most people serious about IR are planning to leave for fellowship.

IMO, looking at the planned internship curriculum, you're basically vascular surgery's bitch to allow their residents more time in the OR. I'm skeptical of the value of the integrated IR internship to YOU. It's obvious which departments are benefitting and it's not radiology.
 
Couldn't disagree more.

If you know you're interested in IR and want to practice 50% or more IR in your career, IR residency is hands down the way to go.

You sound like you're an MGH resident (based on your comments of "abysmal vascular IR" and "abdominal and VIR have now merged"). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that assumption. But, if I'm correct, you have one of the worst IR sections in the country and it is in no way representative of IR nationally. The IR fellows at MGH truly are the vascular surgery scut monkeys. But just the opposite is true at the VAST majority of institutions.



maxxor said:
IMO unless you never ever plan on doing diagnostic radiology in your career (assuming burnout and fatigue and whatever), you should do diagnostic residency and eventually migrate over to IR should you decide to go that way.

Pigeonholing yourself into IR early when you don't know the actual relationships of how IR interacts with all the other departments in the hospital seems risky to me. I'm at a top diagnostic program with a decent nonvascular IR service but an abysmal vascular IR service. Now with the IR residency brouhaha, abdominal and VIR now have merged and this has actually brought abdominal 's reputation down as the vascular attendings had such a bad reputation already. Their case volume went to crap and 2 fellows quit.

I would not recommend anyone match into our IR residency. DR, however, is still strong as ever, and most people serious about IR are planning to leave for fellowship.

IMO, looking at the planned internship curriculum, you're basically vascular surgery's bitch to allow their residents more time in the OR. I'm skeptical of the value of the integrated IR internship to YOU. It's obvious which departments are benefitting and it's not radiology.
Click to expand...
 
why would MGH IR be so bad? fellows are scut monkeys? that seems insane.
 
A common misconception of medical students (and the lay public) is that everything at Harvard is great. In reality, not every department at MGH, Brigham or BI is great. Just ask the IR fellows or attendings at your hospital.

I don't want to sound like an MGH or Harvard hater, because I'm not. An elite diagnostic radiology residency for sure (I don't think I stood a chance of getting in). But they simply have a weak IR section. One of the big problems with Harvard is that they are very old school and have departments like vascular surgery that have been around for a century and have disproportionate political influence.


PL198 said:
why would MGH IR be so bad? fellows are scut monkeys? that seems insane.
Click to expand...
 
Out of the programs that now have integrated IR residencies, which do you guys think are the most well rounded and offer the best DR and IR training?
    • Albany Medical Center, N.Y.
    • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Program, Boston
    • Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
    • Brown University/Rhode Island Hospital, Providence
    • Christiana Care Health Services Inc., Newark, Del.
    • Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta
    • Georgetown University, Washington
    • Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit
    • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Program, New York
    • Maine Medical Center Program, Portland
    • Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
    • Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Fla.
    • McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, Chicago
    • Medical College of Wisconsin Affiliated Hospitals Program, Milwaukee, Wis.
    • Medical University of South Carolina College of Medicine Program, Charleston
    • Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, N.Y.
    • New York University School of Medicine
    • Oregon Health & Science University Hospital, Portland, Ore.
    • Rochester General Hospital, N.Y.
    • Rush University Medical Center Program, Chicago
    • Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia
    • Stanford Hospital and Clinics Program, Calif.
    • Strong Memorial Hospital of the University of Rochester, N.Y.
    • Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia
    • UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine/UCLA Medical Center Program, Los Angeles
    • University of Alabama Hospital, Birmingham
    • University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson
    • University of Arkansas College of Medicine Program, Little Rock
    • University of California (San Diego) Medical Center Program
    • University of California San Francisco School of Medicine
    • University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
    • University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago Program
    • University of Iowa, Iowa City
    • University of Kansas, Lawrence
    • University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
    • University of Minnesota Medical School Program, Minneapolis
    • University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
    • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
    • University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville
    • University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle
    • Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
    • Washington University, St. Louis
    • William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich.
    • Yale-New Haven Medical Center Program, Conn.

 
Thought MGH IR was getting better now that they merged with body intervention. Also I heard they get a decent experience in vascular with the surgeons.
 
Better is a relative term. IR fellows there do rotate with vascular surgery, but they're not treated as equals. The fact that body interventions was separate from vascular is just a reflection of how backwards their setup was to begin with... and also a reflection of how weak the IR section is.

@quirkygator - There are several outstanding and well rounded programs on your list. Frankly I'm having a hard time finding a bad one out of the bunch. Too many med students focus on going to the "best" program and they rely on pseudo-rankings that are anonymously published on the internet. But the truth is that the best residency is the one that 1) gives you an environment that suits your learning style and personality and 2) helps you achieve your long-term career goals (eg, academia vs private practice, region of the country you want to practice, etc.)


badasshairday said:
Thought MGH IR was getting better now that they merged with body intervention. Also I heard they get a decent experience in vascular with the surgeons.
Click to expand...
 
It is far different when comparing a diagnostic radiology program from a strong interventional radiology program. If you want to do IR well, you should go to a program that will train you to be able to independently build a practice immediately after training. Most IR training programs (unless you go to BCVI which only has IR as their sole house staff) will not get you ready enough to do that. You need to look at the resident case logs to get an assessment of the scope and breadth of cases that are being performed. I would avoid looking at volumes alone, as that can be easily inflated with paracentesis, thoracentesis , thyroid biopsies and the like. I would look to see how many hospital admissions per year the IR group is responsible for. Imaging to some extent you can read in a book. Procedural and clinical medicine you have to see patients and perform actual interventions to improve (someday simulators may aid in this).

Are the IR physicians formally seeing consultations and documenting a formal consult note in the EMR/chart or are they accepting orders for procedures in the radiology information systems. How much clinic time are the IR residents going to and how many patients are they seeing a week in clinic. Do the IR physicians order the follow up imaging and labs and see them longitudinally for life in the clinic. Also, how aggressive is the IR group in getting referrals by giving talks and catering to primary care, hospitalists, ER and podiatrists. These are the key questions that should be asked. The only way to sustain a strong IR presence is with referrals from primary care, ED, hospitalists and not get the bulk of your referrals from specialists.

You should go to a place that will give you broad clinical and technical skills and allow you ample clinical rotations such as ICU . You want to be acting at the level of senior resident or fellow if at all possible on the clinical rotations. Also you should identify a program that offers clinical and technical training in interventional oncology including trans arterial therapy and ablation (which almost every program offers), but also vascular interventions in DVT and PE , lower extremity arterial intervention, aortic interventions (which fewer programs can offer to a degree that you get comfortable with it), pain interventions and neurointerventions (especially stroke work).
 
Last edited:
@irwarrior . There's a lot of logistical things that I still don't think are fully hammered out with this split, so I might as well pick your brain here.

Do you read your longitudinal patients' post-procedure followup imaging? Are there conflict of interest issues / Stark law rules with this?
Are you spending time in the diagnostic call pool?
Are you reading diagnostically during the day / regular business hours?
Do you see IR/DR people reading diagnostically after completing IR residency?

With that schedule you just outlined, I don't see how IR people can maintain their diagnostic skills. At every single training program in my state, there is virtually zero crossover between the IR and DR sections. It almost seems like IR is destined to go the way of RadOnc and eventually lose the ability to read diagnostic scans.

Unless you envision a model where you perform and interpret the entire imaging workup for a given disease entity (say UFE or May-Thurner). It doesn't seem like the diagnostic group is going to want to send you referrals to only have you interpret the imaging. Or say its for HCC ablations. Are you coordinating / reading the Liver CT/MRs?

I agree that they are two totally different skill sets, but it almost seems like the "best" IR programs are the ones that would probably make for a mediocre DR program. You can't have too strong surgical departments, because they will just take the cases themselves, yet DR thrives on powerhouse surgical departments for pathology.
 
maxxor said:
@irwarrior . There's a lot of logistical things that I still don't think are fully hammered out with this split, so I might as well pick your brain here.

Do you read your longitudinal patients' post-procedure followup imaging? Are there conflict of interest issues / Stark law rules with this?
Are you spending time in the diagnostic call pool?
Are you reading diagnostically during the day / regular business hours?
Do you see IR/DR people reading diagnostically after completing IR residency?

With that schedule you just outlined, I don't see how IR people can maintain their diagnostic skills. At every single training program in my state, there is virtually zero crossover between the IR and DR sections. It almost seems like IR is destined to go the way of RadOnc and eventually lose the ability to read diagnostic scans.

Unless you envision a model where you perform and interpret the entire imaging workup for a given disease entity (say UFE or May-Thurner). It doesn't seem like the diagnostic group is going to want to send you referrals to only have you interpret the imaging. Or say its for HCC ablations. Are you coordinating / reading the Liver CT/MRs?

I agree that they are two totally different skill sets, but it almost seems like the "best" IR programs are the ones that would probably make for a mediocre DR program. You can't have too strong surgical departments, because they will just take the cases themselves, yet DR thrives on powerhouse surgical departments for pathology.
Click to expand...

I think you are right and IR will end up like Rad onc and be completely separate. The ideal way to have IR is treating it like a surgical subspecialty and there's just no time for diagnostic reads if you are doing that. However, I think neuro/MSK/body DR will still do some lines/biopsies and such. All conjecture but it seems like the way it's going to go.
 
Cubsfan10 said:
I think you are right and IR will end up like Rad onc and be completely separate. The ideal way to have IR is treating it like a surgical subspecialty and there's just no time for diagnostic reads if you are doing that. However, I think neuro/MSK/body DR will still do some lines/biopsies and such. All conjecture but it seems like the way it's going to go.
Click to expand...
So if you take this whole "image guided specialist" to its logical conclusion, why are they spending time AT ALL in the diagnostic reading room?

FYI, Anthony Zeitmann at MGH has advocated for years for RadOnc and IR to merge. I expect they will be coming for IR oncology turf soon.

One "IR" setup makes some sense to me from a DR+IR fusion approach is interventional pain. You see the patient for pain consultation, you order the imaging, you interpret the imaging yourself, you perform the procedures, you order followup, and you manage the meds.

The weird part is, this isn't traditional IR, but actually pain&MSK training...
 
IR will not end up a separate specialty. The entire essence of IR is being an an expert in imaging AND procedures. If you've ever closely watched a vascular surgeon perform endovascular work, or even a cardiologist, you will understand that the lack of imaging expertise is a severe limiting factor to what they can do (though it doesn't necessarily stop them from thinking otherwise). Moreover, the IR leadership (SIR) has made it abundantly clear that they do not want a split. Most of us in IR agree with that because we believe that as a specialty we are politically stronger together than separate. And as DR has become more and more commoditized, DR leadership (ACR) recognizes this as well.

I perform 75-80% IR and the rest of the time I help cover DR at my group - during the workday and on nightcall. I don't have any problems keeping up my diagnostic skills, though I'll admit I'm no where near as good in MSK or Neuro as my fellowship trained partners. On my diagnostic days I'm reading 100-120 studies - a mix of plain film, US, CT and a little MR. The few cases I might be puzzled by with I run by my diagnostic colleagues. The MSK and Neuro guys in my group are the go-to's for the orthopods and neurosurgeons, but I can consult with any other service (GI, Urology, Oncology) on the other cases.

IR/DR trainees will read diagnostic films after residency, just as people like myself (who did the traditional DR w/ IR fellowship route) do now. It helps the groups we work with, it helps us consult on cases we perform, it helps us perform the procedures we do, and most importantly it helps our patients.

Most training programs WON'T have crossover. That's why they are training programs. They are usually tertiary care centers where physicians are very specialized in what they do. That does not reflect the real world.

I think the notion that the best IR programs have mediocre DR training is false. The two training components do not affect each other. The first 3 years of an IR/DR residency is the same as the DR residency. You still must take and pass the core exam. Instead of a mini-fellowsihp in the R4 year, you're doing mostly IR, and then you're doing a 2nd IR year when you would normally do fellowship.
 
Fab5Hill33 said:
IR will not end up a separate specialty. The entire essence of IR is being an an expert in imaging AND procedures. If you've ever closely watched a vascular surgeon perform endovascular work, or even a cardiologist, you will understand that the lack of imaging expertise is a severe limiting factor to what they can do (though it doesn't necessarily stop them from thinking otherwise). Moreover, the IR leadership (SIR) has made it abundantly clear that they do not want a split. Most of us in IR agree with that because we believe that as a specialty we are politically stronger together than separate. And as DR has become more and more commoditized, DR leadership (ACR) recognizes this as well.

I perform 75-80% IR and the rest of the time I help cover DR at my group - during the workday and on nightcall. I don't have any problems keeping up my diagnostic skills, though I'll admit I'm no where near as good in MSK or Neuro as my fellowship trained partners. On my diagnostic days I'm reading 100-120 studies - a mix of plain film, US, CT and a little MR. The few cases I might be puzzled by with I run by my diagnostic colleagues. The MSK and Neuro guys in my group are the go-to's for the orthopods and neurosurgeons, but I can consult with any other service (GI, Urology, Oncology) on the other cases.

IR/DR trainees will read diagnostic films after residency, just as people like myself (who did the traditional DR w/ IR fellowship route) do now. It helps the groups we work with, it helps us consult on cases we perform, it helps us perform the procedures we do, and most importantly it helps our patients.

Most training programs WON'T have crossover. That's why they are training programs. They are usually tertiary care centers where physicians are very specialized in what they do. That does not reflect the real world.

I think the notion that the best IR programs have mediocre DR training is false. The two training components do not affect each other. The first 3 years of an IR/DR residency is the same as the DR residency. You still must take and pass the core exam. Instead of a mini-fellowsihp in the R4 year, you're doing mostly IR, and then you're doing a 2nd IR year when you would normally do fellowship.
Click to expand...

I think the concern is in the future when IR is split from the beginning and those students have little interest in DR from the start. Right now all IR folks have full DR training first. When that changes I just can't see how many IR people will want to or be able to do DR in an appreciable way.

I do agree though that they will be better at interpreting imaging while doing a procedure than other fields but won't that just mean they should outcompete cards and vascular?

I just find it hard to imagine the new IR residency people doing much of any DR. I think people like you fabhill will be a dying breed (which may make you very valuable).
 
Fab5Hill33 said:
IR will not end up a separate specialty. The entire essence of IR is being an an expert in imaging AND procedures. If you've ever closely watched a vascular surgeon perform endovascular work, or even a cardiologist, you will understand that the lack of imaging expertise is a severe limiting factor to what they can do (though it doesn't necessarily stop them from thinking otherwise). Moreover, the IR leadership (SIR) has made it abundantly clear that they do not want a split. Most of us in IR agree with that because we believe that as a specialty we are politically stronger together than separate.
Click to expand...

This is my question as a person who came to residency pretty interested in IR: I don't think creating a separate IR residency is consistent with not eventually separating from DR training.

With the new changes to the CORE exam, most programs are shifting back to the 3+2 model. If that's the case, then what's the point in creating a dedicated IR residency when we already have the option for 1 year minifellowship in IR and 1 year fellowship in IR. If there ARE differences in the first 3 years, then I can't see how IR trained people can make the argument that they are comparable to DR.

If the first 3 years are the same, what's the point in creating an IR residency? It sounds like it only creates additional bureaucracy for trainees to later make up their minds if people later decide to change tracks. The only difference is you control the intern year?

At my program, the IR residency will be different. The first 3 years will have 1-2 months of "IR rotations" meaning up to 6 months will be diverted from traditional DR training. If you take this to the logical extension, why is DR 4 years, but IR can get DR certification in 2.5 years? This is going to build some resentment between the two factions, especially since DR radiologists WONT be able to do "IR" anymore.
 
The creation of the residency is not so much about separating from DR as it was about formalizing and growing the field of IR. For decades IR has been at the forefront of minimally invasive technology only to see other specialties chip away at the field. By making IR a primary certificate, it gains more authenticity when competing with fields like vascular surgery (which, by the way, also have direct pathways [0+5] from medical school that bypass the traditional general surgery residency plus vascular surgery fellowship [5+2] system).

The problem with the mini-fellowship year is that it's extremely variable from institution to institution. At some programs, mini-fellowships mean 3 months of a specialty (in this case IR). At others it means 9 months. What's worse is that clinical training (rounding, outpatient clinic, etc) is not universal at every residency. A new residency had to be created to formalize a comprehensive curriculum.

The new system does create headaches for people who decide to pursue IR later on in their DR training. But the fact is that the majority of people who pursue IR nowadays go into their diagnostic radiology residency knowing that they want to do IR.

Regarding resentment building up because of the 3 vs 4 years of DR exposure: how is it any different that what is currently going on? I did 4 years of DR and 1 year of IR fellowship, yet I am certified to read any and every study that someone who did 5 years of DR can read. Both my DR colleagues and I had to do 6 years of residency/fellowship. In the new system (assuming everyone does some type of fellowship), every future radiologist will have 6 years of residency/fellowship as well. It's no different.

What I can imagine is that DR graduates may get less and less procedural exposure because of the IR residency and a new generation of diagnostic radiologists will emerge that may not be able to do simple procedures. The ACGME has implemented requirements in the IR/DR residency to try and guarantee that the new residencies won't negatively impact the existing DR residencies, but those rules can only go so far. So if this scenario happens, I could see some resentment happening. Or maybe everyone going into DR in the future will do so with the expectation that they won't have to do any procedures and they'll be just fine with that.
 
Stark laws apply to ordering imaging on your own patient at an outpatient facility that you own that is a separate building from your clinic. It does not preclude you from interpreting your own patient's imaging. Cardiologists routinely read their own imaging (echo, CT, MRI), neurologists can independently interpret their patient's imaging, ortho in some places read and bill for some of their own imaging etc. I review all of my patient's imaging and go over the imaging with them in the office or in the hospital, but I am quite busy and don't have the time to perform dedicated official imaging interpretation on a routine basis.

I do only IR call and do not do diagnostic call. I am essentially 100 percent IR and round on my own patients daily, have dedicated office hours to see patients , admit my own patients and do formal inpatient consultations. This does not leave much time for imaging interpretation.

If you want a 100 percent IR and be strong clinically it gets harder and harder to maintain imaging proficiency, but you should be proficient at the imaging of the diseases that you treat and also conditions that you biopsy. very few radiologists or IR are comfortable with echocardiography and that is imaging. Cardiologists are quite good at the heart as they know the natural history, pharmacology, epidemiology, lab evaluation, symptoms, egg, echo, cath, cardiac CT and MRI , physiology about the heart. The problem with most IR is they are good at anatomy and pathology but may be weaker in lab evaluation, ECGs, history and physical exam skills, pharmacology and physiology. You can not be a strong clinician with out those skills and you can be delegated to the role of a technician in the hospital setting very easily. The IR residency should hopefully provide you with a far more integrated clinical training and you should look for programs that offer at least 2 if not 3 months of IR/clinical rotations per year during the PGY 2,3 and 4 years. You can not hope to maintain a strong clinical background after a single clinical year . You need to have graded clinical responsibility and have to make independent decisions similar to the graded approach of a surgical resident who ultimately acts like a junior surgical attending during their chief year.

So, if your goal is to do high end IR , I would encourage you to look at which programs have competed successfully and have robust outpatient clinics that you can participate in or even better would be for the resident to have continuity clinic. The IR group should admit their own patients and the IR group should perform formal consultations. If the IR group gives a ton of talks to primary care and gets the bulk of referrals from primary care as opposed to specialists that is a good sign of a sustainable IR practice. If the IR follow patients longitudinally for life , that is also a recipe for success. Ideally the DR group will support clinical IR, but unfortunately in many group practices they provide IR to maintain the contract but they want the IR to read imaging and not focus on clinic. Though IR may generate a considerable amount of revenue for the hospital it ends up generating a ton of overhead for the DR group and so the average DR group will not want to build its IR section. This has led to more independent IR groups and IR going to join outpatient practices and labs or even joining surgery groups etc. These are exciting times in the field of IR and no one knows how things will pan out. The future training will be a dramatic improvement on the way I was trained. There is a sizable list of programs and one just needs to do their homework to see which ones are truly clinical in nature.
 
irwarrior said:
It is far different when comparing a diagnostic radiology program from a strong interventional radiology program. If you want to do IR well, you should go to a program that will train you to be able to independently build a practice immediately after training. Most IR training programs (unless you go to BCVI) will get you ready enough to do that.
Click to expand...


@irwarrior ,

Thank you for your very informative posts. I am a long time lurker, but I am just curious why you single out BCVI as a program that you wouldn't be able to train at and then be independent immediately after practice? I am a resident trying to decide on fellowships within the upcoming year. Thank you
 
That was an error. Miami Vascular Institute is one of the few VIR fellowships that you can come out of after only a year of training and be ready to develop a clinical practice. You are the only house staff in the hospital and so you see a ton of consults. Katzen and company have been clinicians with robust clinics and admitting privileges for well over 30 years. You will get great exposure to broad pathology and complex interventions. Most 1 year IR fellowships won't get you ready from a clinical equipoise or practice building standpoint and so it will be extremely challenging after 1 year to get a practice going.
 
Are all these new integrated IR residencies in addition to existing fellowships, or are they replacing them on a near 1 for 1 basis?
 
Replacing. Fellowships are going to be phased out completely by 2020. Thought it remains to be seen if it's 1 for 1.

Overall IR spots could slightly decrease. For example, Northwestern has 8 fellowship spots, so they graduate 8 IRs each year. I believe they are going to have 4 or 6 IR/DR spots. Which means they'll have 8 or 12 total IR housestaff at any given time, but each year will graduate only 4 or 6 instead of the current 8. Someone from NW can correct me on that.

There are other programs that didn't have an IR fellowship but are creating an IR/DR residency, so that will add to the number of graduates each year. Though I think this is more the exception... There aren't many hospitals that had the resources for an IR fellowship and never bothered to set one up (relatively easy by ACGME standards) but now are interested in setting up a new residency program (much more difficult to get by ACGME).

Brahnold Bloodaxe said:
Are all these new integrated IR residencies in addition to existing fellowships, or are they replacing them on a near 1 for 1 basis?
Click to expand...
 
I was under the impression there would be 2 year fellowships instead (I.e. You basically just do the 2 years of IR that an IR residency would have) at a given institution. I'm sure those will be decreased but still existent for people who loved rads and did not discover IR until they began residency.
 
Technically the 2-year program you're referring to is called the "independent residency" (I know, it's all semantics). And they will be available. But without getting into the details of it, I believe that they will represent the exception rather than the rule. My guess is they will represent 5-10% of graduates compared to the integrated residency.

Cheyf said:
I was under the impression there would be 2 year fellowships instead (I.e. You basically just do the 2 years of IR that an IR residency would have) at a given institution. I'm sure those will be decreased but still existent for people who loved rads and did not discover IR until they began residency.
Click to expand...
 
quirkygator said:
Out of the programs that now have integrated IR residencies, which do you guys think are the most well rounded and offer the best DR and IR training?
Click to expand...

Yale has a great program. FWIW, one of the fellows left a Harvard programs to come to Yale due to the concerns mentioned above.
 
Naijaba said:
Yale has a great program. FWIW, one of the fellows left a Harvard programs to come to Yale due to the concerns mentioned above.
Click to expand...

This fellow had two SIR abstracts and published a case report from the first program, but left in the middle of the year to go to Yale? What is going on there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top