Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, 585 University Avenue, 1PMB-298, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2N2, Canada.
Division of Interventional Radiology, Hull Hospital, Gatineau, Quebec, Canada.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018 Apr;29(4):524-530.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.11.031. Epub 2018 Mar 1.
To investigate the current status and evolution of both the interventional radiologist's role as a clinician and the practice of interventional radiology (IR) over the past decade in Canada.
In 2015, an online survey was e-mailed to 210 interventional radiologists, including all Canadian active members of the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA) and nonmembers who attended CIRA's annual meeting. Comparisons were made between interventional radiologists in academic versus community practice. The results of the 2015 survey were compared with CIRA's national surveys from 2005 and 2010.
A total of 102 interventional radiologists responded (response rate 49%). Significantly more academic versus community interventional radiologists performed chemoembolization, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, aortic interventions, and arteriovenous malformation embolization (P < .05). Ninety percent of respondents were involved in longitudinal patient care, which had increased by 42% compared with 2005; 46% of interventional radiologists had overnight admitting privileges, compared with 39% in 2010 and 29% in 2005. Eighty-six percent of interventional radiologists accepted direct referrals from family physicians, and 83% directly referred patients to other consultants. Sixty-three percent participated in multidisciplinary tumor board. The main challenges facing interventional radiologists included a lack of infrastructure, inadequate remuneration for IR procedures, and inadequate funding for IR equipment. Significantly more community versus academic interventional radiologists perceived work volume as an important issue facing the specialty in 2015 (60% vs 34%; P = .02).
Over the past decade, many Canadian interventional radiologists have embraced the interventional radiologist-clinician role. However, a lack of infrastructure and funding continue to impede more widespread adoption of clinical IR practice.
调查过去十年中,加拿大介入放射学家作为临床医生的角色以及介入放射学(IR)实践的现状和演变。
2015 年,向 210 名介入放射学家发送了一份在线调查,包括加拿大介入放射学协会(CIRA)的所有加拿大活跃成员和参加 CIRA 年会的非成员。比较了学术实践和社区实践中的介入放射学家。将 2015 年的调查结果与 CIRA 2005 年和 2010 年的全国调查进行了比较。
共有 102 名介入放射学家做出了回应(回应率为 49%)。与社区介入放射学家相比,学术介入放射学家进行化疗栓塞、经颈静脉肝内门体分流术、主动脉介入和动静脉畸形栓塞的比例显著更高(P<0.05)。90%的受访者参与了纵向患者护理,与 2005 年相比增加了 42%;46%的介入放射学家有夜间收治权,而 2010 年为 39%,2005 年为 29%。86%的介入放射学家接受家庭医生的直接转诊,83%的介入放射学家直接将患者转诊给其他顾问。63%的介入放射学家参与了多学科肿瘤委员会。介入放射学家面临的主要挑战包括基础设施不足、介入放射学程序的报酬不足以及介入放射学设备的资金不足。与学术介入放射学家相比,2015 年,更多的社区介入放射学家认为工作量是该专业面临的重要问题(60%比 34%;P=0.02)。
在过去十年中,许多加拿大介入放射学家已经接受了介入放射学家-临床医生的角色。然而,基础设施和资金的缺乏仍然阻碍了更广泛地采用临床 IR 实践。