Abstract
PurposeComparative data on Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) in interventional radiology (IR) is helpful to understand APP utilization in different practice settings. Materials and MethodsA 60-question survey was distributed to 3159 IRs on the Society of Interventional Radiologists Doctor Finder, with 357 responses (11.3% response rate). Respondents represented 258 practices, 100 (39%) academic interventional radiology (AIR), and 158 (61%) private practice interventional radiology (PPIR), in 40 states. ResultsAPPs generated on average 2442 ± 1824 work Relative Value Units/APP group/year (n = 42), with no significant differences between practice models (p = .31). Most APPs did not work weekends (74%, n = 189) or take overnight call (90%, n = 190). The most reported procedures by APPs included paracentesis/thoracentesis (93%), venous access peripherally inserted central catheter placement (63%), and fluoroscopy-guided lumbar puncture (57%). AIR APPs were more likely to perform venous tunneled catheter placement (p = .003) and venous access port placement (p = .003), whereas PPIR APPs were more likely to perform joint injections (p < .001) ConclusionSelf-reported data from PPIR and AIR groups shows that APPs perform a myriad procedure with variation between practice models.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
