Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY 10016.
Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences Emory, University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Acad Radiol. 2020 May;27(5):715-719. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2020.02.019. Epub 2020 Mar 28.
While subspecialty radiologists' practice patterns have received recent attention, little is known about the practice patterns of general radiologists. We aim to characterize this group (which represents most US radiologists).
US radiologists' individual work efforts were assessed using the 2017 Medicare Provider and Other Supplier Public Use File and a previously validated wRVU-weighted claims-based classification system. Using prior criteria, radiologists without >50% work efforts in a single subspecialty were deemed generalists. For this study, a >25% subspecialty work effort threshold was deemed a subspecialty "focus area," and generalists with ≥2 subspecialty focus areas were deemed "multispecialists." Practice characteristics were summarized using various parameters.
Among 12,438 radiologists meeting existing claims-based criteria to be deemed generalists, 85.0% had ≥2 subspecialty focus areas of >25% work effort (i.e., multispecialists), 14.6% had one focus area, and 0.4% had no focus area. The fraction of generalists meeting multispecialist criteria was similar across radiologists' years in practice (range 84.7% to 85.4%), academic vs. nonacademic status (84.9% to 86.6%), and practice size (83.3% to 87.0%). Although general radiologist multispecialization varied geographically, a majority were multispecialists in all states (range 57.6% in VT to 93.9% in WY) and percentages were not associated with state-level population density (r = 0.013; p = 0.926).
The large majority of US general radiologists practice as multispecialists, and nearly all have at least one subspecialty focus area. The predominance of general radiologists' multispecialty focus across various practice types and locations supports their role in facilitating patient access to a range of radiologist subspecialties.
尽管亚专业放射科医生的实践模式受到了近期关注，但对普通放射科医生的实践模式知之甚少。我们旨在描述这一群体（代表了大多数美国放射科医生）。
使用 2017 年医疗保险提供者和其他供应商公共使用文件和以前验证过的基于 wRVU 加权索赔的分类系统评估美国放射科医生的个人工作投入。根据先前的标准，在单一亚专业领域的工作投入超过 50%的放射科医生被视为专家。在这项研究中，超过 25%的亚专业工作投入阈值被认为是亚专业的“重点领域”，有≥2 个亚专业重点领域的普通专家被认为是“多专业专家”。使用各种参数总结实践特征。
在符合现有基于索赔的标准被视为普通专家的 12438 名放射科医生中，85.0%有≥2 个重点领域的亚专业工作投入超过 25%（即多专业专家），14.6%有一个重点领域，0.4%没有重点领域。在放射科医生的从业年限（范围为 84.7%至 85.4%）、学术与非学术地位（84.9%至 86.6%）和实践规模（83.3%至 87.0%）中，符合多专业专家标准的普通专家比例相似。尽管普通放射科医生的多专业专业化存在地域差异，但在所有州中，大多数都是多专业专家（佛蒙特州为 57.6%，怀俄明州为 93.9%），且各州的百分比与州级人口密度无关（r=0.013；p=0.926）。
大多数美国普通放射科医生作为多专业专家执业，并且几乎所有人都至少有一个亚专业重点领域。各种类型和地点的普通放射科医生多专业重点的主导地位支持了他们在促进患者获得一系列放射科亚专业服务方面的作用。
