Radiology - hyped Speciality

[joti]

I know many people in this forum may not agree with this thread. I would like to know the opinion of others.

I personally think radiology is a hyped speciality. They are the only group of people who are overpaid for what they do. All other specialities earn what they deserve. Intellectual specialities like Internal medicine are underpaid considering the amount of the work they do.
Can you believe that for seeing a medicare patient for 30 minutes a PCP gets 15$. However when we order a chest X Ray to confirm the diagnosis of Pneumonia the radiologist get paid 60$ for spending 30 sec to 1 min. Most of the time we will interpret the X Ray and start treatment before the official report comes in. It is very difficult to get a report/procedure in the OFF HOURS (nights and weekends).

I am really glad that Cardiologists started to take the radiology part away from the radiologists. We have to convince other specialities to follow this trend like Pulmonology, Neurology and Internal Medicine.


Please post your responses.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[P Diddy]

I know many people in this forum may not agree with this thread. I would like to know the opinion of others.

I personally think radiology is a hyped speciality. They are the only group of people who are overpaid for what they do. All other specialities earn what they deserve. Intellectual specialities like Internal medicine are underpaid considering the amount of the work they do.
Can you believe that for seeing a medicare patient for 30 minutes a PCP gets 15$. However when we order a chest X Ray to confirm the diagnosis of Pneumonia the radiologist get paid 60$ for spending 30 sec to 1 min. Most of the time we will interpret the X Ray and start treatment before the official report comes in. It is very difficult to get a report/procedure in the OFF HOURS (nights and weekends).

I am really glad that Cardiologists started to take the radiology part away from the radiologists. We have to convince other specialities to follow this trend like Pulmonology, Neurology and Internal Medicine.


Please post your responses.

are you married?

p diddy

 

[joti]

Why did you ask that question? Dont you think this is a reality? You are one of the respected guys in this forum. The answer is YES.

 

[hans19]

I know many people in this forum may not agree with this thread. I would like to know the opinion of others.

I personally think radiology is a hyped speciality. They are the only group of people who are overpaid for what they do. All other specialities earn what they deserve. Intellectual specialities like Internal medicine are underpaid considering the amount of the work they do.
Can you believe that for seeing a medicare patient for 30 minutes a PCP gets 15$. However when we order a chest X Ray to confirm the diagnosis of Pneumonia the radiologist get paid 60$ for spending 30 sec to 1 min. Most of the time we will interpret the X Ray and start treatment before the official report comes in. It is very difficult to get a report/procedure in the OFF HOURS (nights and weekends).

I am really glad that Cardiologists started to take the radiology part away from the radiologists. We have to convince other specialities to follow this trend like Pulmonology, Neurology and Internal Medicine.


Please post your responses.

Do you think you actually get 30 minutes per patient? In private practice you need to see around 30-40 per day. That gives you 15 minutes per patient.

Read as many chest x rays, ultrasounds and CTs and MRIs as you want, you will also have to accept the liability for your reads. That will leave you with even less time to see your patients... 10 minutes per patient...

What you end up getting, is less time spent with the patient, and probably a half baked radiologic interpretation. Do you think this is the best thing for patient care?

 

[P Diddy]

Why did you ask that question? Dont you think this is a reality? You are one of the respected guys in this forum. The answer is YES.

jeez, no more levity I guess.

p diddy

 

[P Diddy]

Do you think you actually get 30 minutes per patient? In private practice you need to see around 30-40 per day. That gives you 15 minutes per patient.

Read as many chest x rays, ultrasounds and CTs and MRIs as you want, you will also have to accept the liability for your reads. That will leave you with even less time to see your patients... 10 minutes per patient...

What you end up getting, is less time spent with the patient, and probably a half baked radiologic interpretation. Do you think this is the best thing for patient care?

i think you're missing the point. if cardiologists take over reading cardiac MRI and CT (as they already are, with the associated liability), they would have to see _fewer_ patients each day as they would be engaged in a financially more productive activity.

i'm all for cardiologists reading studies specific to the heart. we're capable of it and have a better idea how to correlate the findings clinically than radiologists do. it's parallel to the phenomenon of vascular surgeons reading carotid ultrasounds.

p diddy

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

I know many people in this forum may not agree with this thread. I would like to know the opinion of others.

I personally think radiology is a hyped speciality. They are the only group of people who are overpaid for what they do. All other specialities earn what they deserve. Intellectual specialities like Internal medicine are underpaid considering the amount of the work they do.
Can you believe that for seeing a medicare patient for 30 minutes a PCP gets 15$. However when we order a chest X Ray to confirm the diagnosis of Pneumonia the radiologist get paid 60$ for spending 30 sec to 1 min. Most of the time we will interpret the X Ray and start treatment before the official report comes in. It is very difficult to get a report/procedure in the OFF HOURS (nights and weekends).

I am really glad that Cardiologists started to take the radiology part away from the radiologists. We have to convince other specialities to follow this trend like Pulmonology, Neurology and Internal Medicine.


Please post your responses.

I thought of several responses to your diatribe insulting my career. In the end, I decided to take the high road, and just say that you are wrong. Radiologists are highly trained specialists who know imaging much better than any other specialty can. Just as you know clinical cardiology better than I do

I wish you the best. I will testify against you when you miss something on imaging.

 

[hans19]

i think you're missing the point. if cardiologists take over reading cardiac MRI and CT (as they already are, with the associated liability), they would have to see _fewer_ patients each day as they would be engaged in a financially more productive activity.

i'm all for cardiologists reading studies specific to the heart. we're capable of it and have a better idea how to correlate the findings clinically than radiologists do. it's parallel to the phenomenon of vascular surgeons reading carotid ultrasounds.

p diddy

You want to read cardiac CTA? Thats probably the easiest part. Good luck with the lungs and mediastinum, though. If you truly want to improve, you need to read a lot of films day after day. You'll find you may have to cut into the time spent with your patients. Before you know it you've become a essentially a radiologist.

 

[P Diddy]

You want to read cardiac CTA? Thats probably the easiest part. Good luck with the lungs and mediastinum, though. If you truly want to improve, you need to read a lot of films day after day. You'll find you may have to cut into the time spent with your patients. Before you know it you've become a essentially a radiologist.

oh we're already reading cardiac CTA, don't need permission from you. i mean it's so easy, as you mentioned, so we might as well do it.

i'll only become a radiologist if i turn off my brain and my heart.

p diddy

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

oh we're already reading cardiac CTA, don't need permission from you. i mean it's so easy, as you mentioned, so we might as well do it.

i'll only become a radiologist if i turn off my brain and my heart.

p diddy

I just checked out your previous posts and decided to delete my response.

 

[Wrigleyville]

Most of the time we will interpret the X Ray and start treatment before the official report comes in. It is very difficult to get a report/procedure in the OFF HOURS (nights and weekends).

When is the last time you read the official cardiologist's interpretation of the EKGs you order? I bet you didn't even know they existed. Probably hard to get after hours too, since half the time they don't show up till after the patient is discharged.

I think the radiologists do pretty well in providing coverage. In most places you can stroll down there at any hour or make a phone call and find someone to go over your study with you if you need a stat interpretation.

I'm not sure what all the bitterness and jealously over here is about. Probably some buyer's remorse about doing an internal medicine residency.

 

[P Diddy]

I just checked out your previous posts and decided to delete my response.

why?

p diddy

 

[Modulus]

I have also noticed that my hospital charges up to $60 for the typical chest xray, however the bulk of that fee is the "technical component" which the hospital keeps, not the radiologist. The "professional component" of that chest x-ray ends up being closer to $5- a number that I assume you consider much more down to earth.

On another note, I believe most cardiologists in general are just as well if not better compensated than radiologists these days. I don't see my radiology colleagues wishing a lesser salary for your services, or those of any other physicians for that matter. I wish my colleagues in all other fields were remunerated better for what they do. Nonetheless, I hold that our radiology services are valuable in the patient's course of management.

Although much of what radiolgists do can be sliced up and learned well individually, there is an excess of work and imaging to be done- enough to merit leaving the majority of that to imaging specialists. Especially in studies involving ionizing radiation: if you are going to irradiate the person, is it not best for that patient to have someone look at the images who is trained to interpret the entire area that was exposed, as compared to just the coronary arteries? Now that medical radiation is officially considered a "carcinogen", there is a recent troubling statistic reporting that 1 in 10,000 (maybe higher) who receive a chest or abdomen CT are expected to develop a fatal malignancy at some point in their life as a direct result of that exposure. With such risks, I would hope that the person interpretting my study could glean every bit of information out of it that they could.

I do believe if other specialties received the appropriate compensation, they would not be seeking so much to encroach on radiologists' turf, and possibly even over-utilize imaging for self-interest and financial gain.

Imaging does have many open and hidden costs, including risk to patient and financial burden on society. If every specialist had the facility of imaging in their office, many ponder if it would not "break the bank"- as a result of many over-utilized studies, done just for the "heck of it" or due to "ease of use" with the temptation of financial gain.

As it is, our radiology work load has significantly increased in the past decade- due to both advances in technology and increased range, sensitivity and specifity in our clinical applications. A large part in our increased work load is may also be tied to the unfortunate loss of confidence in clinical exams, possible due to clincal providers having less time to spend with their patients just to stay afloat. Yet I firmly believe that the public is best served separating ordering providers form the interpretting ones, and separating the temptation of finanical gain from self-referral so that only the appropriate studies get ordered and resources are not squandered.
I also wish that our clinical colleagues salaries would raise to reflect the importance of what they do, and not have the importance of what I do belittled or my compensation be overestimated.

And for those who believe we do not work as hard- do a FRIEDA or AMA search and see where radiologist work hours are compared to other specialties and you may be in for quite a surprise. We do train for an extended amount of time, often just as many years as a cardiologist, and work similar hours.

As a result of the unchecked over-utilization of imaging, this year we are uniquely being penalized as a specialty by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2007, unfairly singling out the technical component of many of our exams for drastic cuts in reimbursement. It was not my radiological colleagues that ordered all those extra exams that drove up the cost of imaging to unheard of levels and double digit percentage growth.

Do what you love, and serve patients in your own best way. I will back up any physicians right to improved compensation, however I will repeat my argument- I will not stand for others to belittle the importance of our services or begrudge us our compensation.

 

[lub-dub]

Gee guys...can we all just get along and do our jobs as best as we can? Why bitching at each other? After all, different strokes for different folks! We all work very hard...cardiologists and radiologists alike! We are all MEDICAL DOCTORS who want the best for our patients!!! IF we should bitch, we should bitch at those bastard lawyers who just sit aroound and talk with their boneless tongues to make us all miserable...

 

[reallyanon]

I think that the future at least for training institutions should be a cardiac reading room that is staffed by both chest/cardiac radiologists and cardiologist who specialize in imaging. the truth is that cardiologists have the radiologists beat hands down on physiology/clinical management/incorporation of imaging into the larger plan of care. The radiologist without a doubt have a much better grasp on the physics/image optimization and everything that exists in the chest that doesn't go lub-dub. I would hope as is being done at some institutions that we can move beyond a turf war to advance the field of cardiac imaging in such a way that benefits radiologists/cardiologists but most importantly our patients. will this work out in the world beyond academics? probably not. I think that doctor bashing has got to stop. As a profession we should try and stand together or risk falling alone.

 

[tibor75]

radiologists are fine with what they do, but are completely out of their league reading nuclear stress tests and cardiac MRI. They don't have the interest or the expertise to interpret them intelligently, keeping the context of the patients' overall cardiac status in perspective.

Unfortunately, cardiac MRI is under radiology at my hospital which is why we rarely use them.

 

[cardsfellow2007]

radiologists are fine with what they do, but are completely out of their league reading nuclear stress tests and cardiac MRI. They don't have the interest or the expertise to interpret them intelligently, keeping the context of the patients' overall cardiac status in perspective.

Unfortunately, cardiac MRI is under radiology at my hospital which is why we rarely use them.

Well said! At our hospital the cardiologists read most of the cardiac MRI studies as the radiologists don't do as good of a job.

Radiologists are quickly becoming the Family Medicine docs of imaging as they know a little about every type of study, but a lot about nothing. Also, they don't have 6 years of internal medicine training / cardiology training. During my training I have been reading my own films before the official report is up and actually have been correlating clinically while they have been sipping lattes in the reading room.

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

Well said! At our hospital the cardiologists read most of the cardiac MRI studies as the radiologists don't do as good of a job.

Radiologists are quickly becoming the Family Medicine docs of imaging as they know a little about every type of study, but a lot about nothing. Also, they don't have 6 years of internal medicine training / cardiology training. During my training I have been reading my own films before the official report is up and actually have been correlating clinically while they have been sipping lattes in the reading room.

You're most likely comparing general radiologists to cardiac imaging trained cardiologists. If you compared MRI / Chest trained radiologists to general cards, you would get the opposite results. And if there is a non cardiac imaging trained cardiologist reading and protocolling these studies, I think its just plain poor.

So what that the radiologist doesn't have 6 years of internal medicine / cardiology training? The cardiologist doesn't have 4 years of radiology training. I have yet to see a non-imaging fellowship trained cardiologist even come close to understanding MRI. And not just esoteric physics, but fundamental concepts.

As for the imaging trained cards that read cardiac MRI, I agree, most are very good at reading cardiac MRI. However, I have seen them miss a renal cell carcinoma and major lyphadenopathy due to their tunnel vision.

As for the sipping lattes comment, most private practice radiologists work just as long hours with less down time and more time pressure than many cardiologists. Just because our job can be done sitting down doesn't mean its not high stress and difficult. What really pisses me off is when some smartass such as yourself, who has not really seen what the day to day duties of a radiologist entails, starts insulting my profession.

 

[Taurus]

Yeah, you have to always keep one eye on those cards, two if you can spare.

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

Yeah, you have to always keep one eye on those cards, two if you can spare.

I think I took out the part of the post you were responding to.

 

[cardsfellow2007]

You're most likely comparing general radiologists to cardiac imaging trained cardiologists. If you compared MRI / Chest trained radiologists to general cards, you would get the opposite results. And if there is a non cardiac imaging trained cardiologist reading and protocolling these studies, I think its just plain poor.

So what that the radiologist doesn't have 6 years of internal medicine / cardiology training? The cardiologist doesn't have 4 years of radiology training. I have yet to see a non-imaging fellowship trained cardiologist even come close to understanding MRI. And not just esoteric physics, but fundamental concepts.

As for the imaging trained cards that read cardiac MRI, I agree, most are very good at reading cardiac MRI. However, I have seen them miss a renal cell carcinoma and major lyphadenopathy due to their tunnel vision.

As for the sipping lattes comment, most private practice radiologists work just as long hours with less down time and more time pressure than many cardiologists. Just because our job can be done sitting down doesn't mean its not high stress and difficult. What really pisses me off is when some smartass such as yourself, who has not really seen what the day to day duties of a radiologist entails, starts insulting my profession.

This actually was comparing MRI / Chrest trained radiologists to CMR trained cardiologists. Radiologists are the front line readers of films, that doesn't make them the end all when it comes to diagnosing patients. The institution that I am at has a top 5 radiology program, which in general gives excellent reads. However, much is lacking with the correlation to clinical care. Ideally, in my opinion, cardiac studies should be read by both a radiologist and a cardiologist.

Across the nation there is a growing movement to have practioners read more of their own studies. While this is likely in part lead by insurance companies, it has some merit. In some states Orthopods are able to read their own imaging studies. Pulmonologists should be able to read their own chest x-rays as they do a far better job of reading them in light of the clinical situation of their patients.

As for the sipping lattes comment. When one is in the hospital 57 hours on average as a private practice radiologist with very little downtime they had better be drinking some kind of coffee!

 

[emtji]

are you married?

p diddy

Why did you ask that question?

because with all the hours you're working, you won't be in a few years.

 

[RADRULES]

Everyone in medicine knows how greedy you cards are - just in it for the money. God knows how many unnecessary stents you all have thrown into people.

As for cardiac CT/MRI/Nucs - I would happily put my interpretation skills up against ANY cardiologist. All of these modalities have been developed and perfected by RADIOLOGISTS. Plus - I can read the WHOLE STUDY.

I look forward to testifying again all the money hungry cards on all the horrible misses that will come out of cardiac CTA.

To tell you how disgusting cards are - they want to take all the raw data from a coronary CTA - which radiates the ENTIRE chest - and throw it away. That's right - the small lung cancer which could be cured and all. They want to read only reconstucted images of the coronaries.

Yeah - sounds like good patient care to me. Lets expose the entire chest to radiation and throw away the chest data because I can't read it and I am a greedy pig.

Dont worry - I will be there sifting through the trash to find the missed lung cancer, breast cancer, destructive spine lesion, mediastinal mass, etc - just so I can nail you with the help of a friendly plantiffs attorney.

You wanna play? You better bring your A-game bitch.

 

[Taurus]

Dont worry - I will be there sifting through the trash to find the missed lung cancer, breast cancer, destructive spine lesion, mediastinal mass, etc - just so I can nail you with the help of a friendly plantiffs attorney.

This sounds like the beginning of a new revenue stream for rads.

 

[MalteseCross]

wow, just look at how useful CT screening of asymptomatic organs is:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/9/953

how about we just run the entire population through the CT scanner q year, just to keep everyone free of hamartomas and incidentalomas?

 

[RADRULES]

FOOL - the rate of significant incidental findings on coronary CTA is 15%. This means cancer, pulm embolism, etc.

Don't let real science stand in the way of your money grubbing ways. Big brother is watching - your greed will bite you all in the ass.

Just think about what you will say at the deposition when asked if where you did your radiology residency...

Ooops - guess you should have paid attention to those incidentalomas.

 

[LGMD]

Dont worry - I will be there sifting through the trash to find the missed lung cancer, breast cancer, destructive spine lesion, mediastinal mass, etc - just so I can nail you with the help of a friendly plantiffs attorney.

You wanna play? You better bring your A-game bitch.

Wow looks like someone has a beef against cards. Dont be jealous Radrules, everyone can do his/her work without bashing others. Show more professionalism and etiquete.

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

wow, just look at how useful CT screening of asymptomatic organs is:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/9/953

how about we just run the entire population through the CT scanner q year, just to keep everyone free of hamartomas and incidentalomas?

The general radiology opinion is that whole body screening is a very bad idea (of note, many of these centers were actually owned by cardiologists who decided to offer this service in addition to coronary calcification CT and had the studies read by a radiologist).

However, this is a different situation. In this case, you are already irradiating the patient. Also, many of those at risk for coronary disease are also at increased risk of lung carcinoma (namely smokers or former smokers).

There are a couple problems with tunnel vision. First, the cause of the patients pain may be present elsewhere (although not optimized for the PAs, you can see PE on coronary CTA. They may have mediastinitis, mediastinal mass or lymphadenopathy, they may have a large hiatal hernia, cholecystitis or biliary obstruction mimicing chest pain, aortic dissection or intramural hematoma, they could even have underlying pleural disease).

A study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology in 2006 found that in 32 of 420 symptomatic patients demonstrated a potential non cardiac etiology for the pain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16843193&dopt=Abstract

Secondly, many of the "incidentalomas" you call so unimportant, may be important. The same study showed 22.7% had significant extracardiac findings requiring intevention or follow up. The incidental malignancy rate was low (0.8%), but still signficant when you consider that almost 1 out every 125 scans you read will have a cancer that you didn't see. Lets say you self refer and do 12 scans a day. You gotta make some money on that multimillion dollar scanner you just sunk your money into. While raking in the cash, you will miss a cancer every ten days. Doesn't sound quite so low when stated that way, does it.

 

[MalteseCross]

However, this is a different situation. In this case, you are already irradiating the patient. Also, many of those at risk for coronary disease are also at increased risk of lung carcinoma (namely smokers or former smokers).

The study I quoted above *is* of current and former smokers. And while the study did find that CT surveillance increased the rate of detection and treatment of lung cancers (surprise surprise), it did not "meaningfully reduce the risk of advanced lung cancer or death from lung cancer." In otherwords, CT screening, even in a high-risk population, increased the number of morbid procedures/treatments patients were exposed to (lung bx, chemo, rads, surg) without any benefit in mortality.

While it is admittedly counterintuitive, for now it seems quite difficult to make an argument that our patients would somehow be better off if we looked at their non-symptomatic organs.

 

[gwen]

stop all this whining - you guys are both in the top few specialties. both work hard and get good pay.

if there is anyone to complain about its DERM!

 

[eddieberetta]

The study I quoted above *is* of current and former smokers. And while the study did find that CT surveillance increased the rate of detection and treatment of lung cancers (surprise surprise), it did not "meaningfully reduce the risk of advanced lung cancer or death from lung cancer." In otherwords, CT screening, even in a high-risk population, increased the number of morbid procedures/treatments patients were exposed to (lung bx, chemo, rads, surg) without any benefit in mortality.

While it is admittedly counterintuitive, for now it seems quite difficult to make an argument that our patients would somehow be better off if we looked at their non-symptomatic organs.

UMMMMMM... we are not talking about screening asymptomatic patients, we are talking about LOOKING at IMAGE data that is ALREADYacquired when a CCTA is performed.

 

[hans19]

i'll only become a radiologist if i turn off my brain and my heart.

p diddy

Really? I considered doing IM -> Cardiology, but my grades were too good...

 

[Naked Ned]

This actually was comparing MRI / Chrest trained radiologists to CMR trained cardiologists. Radiologists are the front line readers of films, that doesn't make them the end all when it comes to diagnosing patients. The institution that I am at has a top 5 radiology program, which in general gives excellent reads. However, much is lacking with the correlation to clinical care. Ideally, in my opinion, cardiac studies should be read by both a radiologist and a cardiologist.

Across the nation there is a growing movement to have practioners read more of their own studies. While this is likely in part lead by insurance companies, it has some merit. In some states Orthopods are able to read their own imaging studies. Pulmonologists should be able to read their own chest x-rays as they do a far better job of reading them in light of the clinical situation of their patients.

As for the sipping lattes comment. When one is in the hospital 57 hours on average as a private practice radiologist with very little downtime they had better be drinking some kind of coffee!

This issue of reading studies in the light of the clinical situation is problematic. One of the best ways to screw up is to go into a study with a preconceived notion of what the diagnosis is. The films should speak for themselves. That is why a lot of radiologists prefer to look at a study first without knowing the clinical history.

What a radiologist brings to the table is a structured, formal method of carefully evaluation of any study, from verification of the name and date to analysis of subtle abnormalities which may not be immediately apparent. This is not taught formally in any of the other specialties, period.

The truth is the exact opposite of what you say. Division of labor has always been the most efficient means of tackling a complex task. That is why orthopods do orthopedic surgery, cardiologists are clinically responsible for complex cardiac issues, etc. Radiologists specialize in imaging. I can read a cardiac CTA, just like I can read a pulmonary CTA. I don't need a cardiologist or a pulmonologist to help me, and in fact would laugh if they tried. Just like they don't need my help to adjust ventilator settings or drop a central venous pacer.

 

[gwen]

that's funny...what alternate universe do you live in? have you seen the cardiology applicant and acceptance stats? rads is competitive, no doubt - but believe me, cards is much tougher.

Really? I considered doing IM -> Cardiology, but my grades were too good...

 

[salamander]

that's funny...what alternate universe do you live in? have you seen the cardiology applicant and acceptance stats? rads is competitive, no doubt - but believe me, cards is much tougher.

Both radiologists and cardiologists perform important services and the competitiveness of each specialty doesn't change that. Let's put that out there first.

That said, it's a pretty fair statement to say that modern day radiology is probably more competitive than cardiology, though I'd add that 10-20 years ago this probably wasn't the case, back when radiology was not a sought out specialty. Either way, both are very competitive and both can draw applicants intelligent enough to practice competently.

Comparing competition between these two specialties is comparing apples and oranges, which complicates comparison. Radiology is an extremely competitive RESIDENCY to get into, but once you get in you can easily do a fellowship. Conversely for cardiology IM is a much easier RESIDENCY to get into (we're talking about more than a standard deviation difference in boards scores between radiologists and IM residents), however cardiology FELLOWSHIP gets the cream of this less competitive IM crop. So at the end of the day it's hard to compare the two, because where competition comes in is at different levels of training, and from different pools. Sure cardiologists are the A students of IM, but that IM pool has numbers that are significantly lower than rads numbers.

Again though, I don't think it's an issue of intelligence or ability. Both have high achieving smart people that work pretty hard. No reason to throw stones.

 

[TransFatsRgood]

No way is modern day radiology tougher to get into than Cardiology, the last post is the most asinine evidence ever.

Radiologist are not real physicians, they are just technicians. The bottom line to this argument is that cardiology just don't need them. These radiologist just have no clue about what real life medicine is about

In fact, I suspect that their biggest threat in the future is actually going to be a computer. Eventually the technology will just phase them out.

Interesting to see how many of these "technicians" show up here to spout.

I went to a combined conference on cardiac imaging the other day and it was just so hilarious to hear the distinguished radiology professor fumble his way through the physiology,

 

[TransFatsRgood]

Or need you period

 

[salamander]

No way is modern day radiology tougher to get into than Cardiology, the last post is the most asinine evidence ever.

Radiologist are not real physicians, they are just technicians. The bottom line to this argument is that cardiology just don't need them. These radiologist just have no clue about what real life medicine is about

In fact, I suspect that their biggest threat in the future is actually going to be a computer. Eventually the technology will just phase them out.

Interesting to see how many of these "technicians" show up here to spout.

I went to a combined conference on cardiac imaging the other day and it was just so hilarious to hear the distinguished radiology professor fumble his way through the physiology,

Ummm, not sure where your post refutes my claim.... I talked about how competitive each specialty is, not whether you think radiologists are "real physicians". Regarding this extraneous point, I guess having an MD is not your particular guide, so that's okay. I guess doing surgical procedures dosn't make them real physicians either. Either way, that doesn't disprove my argument that these non-"real physicians" graduate from the same medical schools as the "real physician" IM docs, and score over a standard deviation higher on Step 1. From the pool of IM docs, cardiologists tend to be the most competitive, however they are A students from a less competitive pool. My point is it's hard to compare these two groups, b/c it's comparing apples and oranges.

Again, cardiologists are plenty smart as, honestly are most doctors. In your post a strong dose of bias and emotion seeps out, I'm not sure exactly why.

Give radiology its due. You may want money from things radiologists do, and that's fine, but at least be fair in your characterization. Rads are clearly not just "technologists". If you believe that, then there's not much further I can get with you.

 

[TransFatsRgood]

Noble response, I came back on here to amend that post and I am impressed.

I was thinking last night, (as I was at a close friend's house: radiology resident..) For all I know, it could have been your house...
The majority of us are here because of the impending fellowship match day (June 20th). I am not even a cardiologist, yet I act like I am an expert. I think it has to do with insecurity, so, I retract my previous message, but I will leave it and acknowledge it was more of an attack than any type of significant point.

Thanks

Ummm, not sure where your post refutes my claim.... I talked about how competitive each specialty is, not whether you think radiologists are "real physicians". Regarding this extraneous point, I guess having an MD is not your particular guide, so that's okay. I guess doing surgical procedures dosn't make them real physicians either. Either way, that doesn't disprove my argument that these non-"real physicians" graduate from the same medical schools as the "real physician" IM docs, and score over a standard deviation higher on Step 1. From the pool of IM docs, cardiologists tend to be the most competitive, however they are A students from a less competitive pool. My point is it's hard to compare these two groups, b/c it's comparing apples and oranges.

Again, cardiologists are plenty smart as, honestly are most doctors. In your post a strong dose of bias and emotion seeps out, I'm not sure exactly why.

Give radiology its due. You may want money from things radiologists do, and that's fine, but at least be fair in your characterization. Rads are clearly not just "technologists". If you believe that, then there's not much further I can get with you.

 

[nutcancer]

shouldn't you cardiologists be spying on your wives to make sure they aren't servicing the mailman?

 

[joti]

Really? I considered doing IM -> Cardiology, but my grades were too good...

You should never think about Cards. This is the exact reason why I put this thread. You are thinking about easy money and life style. NOt ready to accept the challenge of patient care.

 

[Shah_Patel_PT]

Really? I considered doing IM -> Cardiology, but my grades were too good...

...and you prolly did not see yourself doing 3 years of IM (aka hard work)!

 

[MacGyver]

IN an argument amongst doctors, the side that starts threatening that they are going to jump in bed iwth lawyers and contribute to the lawsuit culture we have today should be labeled a sworn enemy of the state.

Stealing procedures between specialties is one thing. Getting the lawyers involved and becoming their personal ***** is something else. Thats just playing dirty.

I'm gonna give a big **** YOU to all the lawyer ****** out there.

 

[salmonella]

Just go to any clinic and ask any patient whether cardiologists or radiologists are more well respected as physicians. I bet 99% of them would say cardiologists. The other 1% probably has a family member who is a radiologist.

 

[Naked Ned]

Just go to any clinic and ask any patient whether cardiologists or radiologists are more well respected as physicians. I bet 99% of them would say cardiologists. The other 1% probably has a family member who is a radiologist.

Most people don't know what a radiologist is. We are doctor's doctors, like pathologists -- most people don't know what they are either. If you think you can practice effectively without input from either one of these specialities, you are an idiot.

 

[MedStudent2007]

my bro-in-law is a cardio fellow at upenn. this year, just upenn got 900 applications for cardiology. just one hospital got 900 apps. they pick roughly 70-80 people for interviews. that's just interviewing 8% for roughly 10 spots.
if you look at the 2006 match at http://www.nrmp.org/fellow/match_name/msmp/stats.html, you'll see that the total number of spots available is 670. i was not able to find the total number of applications though. but considering one hospital is getting 900 applications, i'd guess its pretty large.

i know this is not an exact comparison (i'm looking at data from '05 for radiology so it might be off a bit, but i can't imagine things changed that drastically - http://www.nrmp.org/matchoutcomes.pdf). 1200 people applied for a total of 1020 some spots.

 

[Naked Ned]

my bro-in-law is a cardio fellow at upenn. this year, just upenn got 900 applications for cardiology. just one hospital got 900 apps. they pick roughly 70-80 people for interviews. that's just interviewing 8% for roughly 10 spots.
if you look at the 2006 match at http://www.nrmp.org/fellow/match_name/msmp/stats.html, you'll see that the total number of spots available is 670. i was not able to find the total number of applications though. but considering one hospital is getting 900 applications, i'd guess its pretty large.

i know this is not an exact comparison (i'm looking at data from '05 for radiology so it might be off a bit, but i can't imagine things changed that drastically - http://www.nrmp.org/matchoutcomes.pdf). 1200 people applied for a total of 1020 some spots.

Internal medicine has a very large number of potential candidates, much larger than the field of radiology candidates, and cardiology is a very popular subspecialty. U Penn is a top program and will receive many applications. Lower tier programs will not get so much interest. Do you have data on the total numbers of candidates and their qualifications? Obviously there are many highly qualified and intelligent candidates.

Diagnostic Radiology is a general specialty; subspecialties will obviously each be different. The top residency programs get 700-800 applications, interview 100, and pick 10. Lower tier programs may not get so much interest. The matched residents are almost entirely composed of highly qualified US grads.

What's your point? Are you trying to prove that cardiology is better than radiology? Maybe once you get a few months into internship you will start to appreciate your colleagues a little.

 

[nutcancer]

rads is more competitive than cards.

just because you have a lot of *******es applying to your field and getting rejected and lowering your acceptance rate doesn't make cardiology more competitive.

i think students at competitive (like mgh) would be competitive for any residency, but keep in mind you have a bunch of FMG's and us grads who didn't do well in med school and saw cards as a back door to money.

i respect cardiology, but lets not say BS things like cardiology is more competitive than radiology, especially by quoting penn's cardiology. i'm sure they attract the finest of the finest, la creme de la creme. but what about the local community hospital's cardiology program with the foreign medical graduate who went to islamabad medical college?

 

[TransFatsRgood]

keep the words of wisdom flowing......It is so good to see that just made the transition from sharing your words of wisdom and insight in the 3rd year medical student section to our dumb asses in the Cardiology boards.

 

[TransFatsRgood]

my bro-in-law is a cardio fellow at upenn. this year, just upenn got 900 applications for cardiology. just one hospital got 900 apps. they pick roughly 70-80 people for interviews. that's just interviewing 8% for roughly 10 spots.
if you look at the 2006 match at http://www.nrmp.org/fellow/match_name/msmp/stats.html, you'll see that the total number of spots available is 670. i was not able to find the total number of applications though. but considering one hospital is getting 900 applications, i'd guess its pretty large.

i know this is not an exact comparison (i'm looking at data from '05 for radiology so it might be off a bit, but i can't imagine things changed that drastically - http://www.nrmp.org/matchoutcomes.pdf). 1200 people applied for a total of 1020 some spots.

Finally, someone hit the nail on the head! Notice how fast this generated responses from the radiology