Claire S Kaufman1, Charles A James2, Roger K Harned3, Bairbre L Connolly4, Derek J Roebuck5, Anne M Cahill6, Josee Dubois7, Frank P Morello8, Robin K Morgan9, Manrita K Sidhu10. 1. Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 200 W. Arbor Drive, San Diego, CA, 92103, USA. Claire.Kaufman@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Arkansas Children's Hospital, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Image Guided Therapy, Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK. 6. Division of Interventional Radiology, Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, CU Sainte-Justine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada. 8. Department of Medical Imaging, College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 10. Seattle Radiologists and Foundry10, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric interventional radiology is a distinct subspecialty differing from both pediatric diagnostic radiology and adult interventional radiology. We conducted a workforce survey in 2005 to evaluate the state of pediatric interventional radiology at that time. Since then there have been many advancements to the subspecialty, including the founding of the Society for Pediatric Interventional Radiology (SPIR). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current state of the pediatric interventional radiology workforce and compare findings with those of the initial 2005 workforce survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sent a two-part survey electronically to members of SPIR, the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR), the Society of Chairmen of Radiology in Children's Hospitals (SCORCH) and the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR). Part 1 focused on individual practitioners (n=177), while part 2 focused on group practices and was answered by a leader from each group (n=88). We examined descriptive statistics and, when possible, compared the results to the study from 2005. RESULTS: A total of 177 individuals replied (a 331% increase over the first study) and 88 pediatric interventional radiology (IR) service sites responded (a 131.6% increase). Pediatric IR has become a more clinically oriented specialty, with a statistically significant increase in services with admitting privileges, clinics and performance of daily rounds. Pediatric IR remains diverse in training and practice. Many challenges still exist, including anesthesia/hospital support, and the unknown impact of the new IR residency on pediatric IR training, although the workforce shortage has been somewhat alleviated, as demonstrated by the decreased mean call from 165 days/year to 67.2 days/year. CONCLUSION: Pediatric interventional radiology practitioners and services have grown significantly since 2005, although the profile of this small subspecialty has changed and some challenges remain.
BACKGROUND: Pediatric interventional radiology is a distinct subspecialty differing from both pediatric diagnostic radiology and adult interventional radiology. We conducted a workforce survey in 2005 to evaluate the state of pediatric interventional radiology at that time. Since then there have been many advancements to the subspecialty, including the founding of the Society for Pediatric Interventional Radiology (SPIR). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current state of the pediatric interventional radiology workforce and compare findings with those of the initial 2005 workforce survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sent a two-part survey electronically to members of SPIR, the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR), the Society of Chairmen of Radiology in Children's Hospitals (SCORCH) and the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR). Part 1 focused on individual practitioners (n=177), while part 2 focused on group practices and was answered by a leader from each group (n=88). We examined descriptive statistics and, when possible, compared the results to the study from 2005. RESULTS: A total of 177 individuals replied (a 331% increase over the first study) and 88 pediatric interventional radiology (IR) service sites responded (a 131.6% increase). Pediatric IR has become a more clinically oriented specialty, with a statistically significant increase in services with admitting privileges, clinics and performance of daily rounds. Pediatric IR remains diverse in training and practice. Many challenges still exist, including anesthesia/hospital support, and the unknown impact of the new IR residency on pediatric IR training, although the workforce shortage has been somewhat alleviated, as demonstrated by the decreased mean call from 165 days/year to 67.2 days/year. CONCLUSION: Pediatric interventional radiology practitioners and services have grown significantly since 2005, although the profile of this small subspecialty has changed and some challenges remain.