Critical Appraisal of the Technical Practice Model for Interventional Radiology

ABSTRACT

It is clear that interventional radiology contributes substantially to the status of radiology departments in the hospital as well as in the community. Experience has shown that clinical management is the key to well-reimbursed procedure volume and increased referrals for those services. Additionally, it allows the opportunity for interventionalists to participate in technological changes that we can envision right now, which could have significant impact on the management of numerous diseases. If treatment is “clearly indicated,” then the interventionalist has an obligation to present that opinion to the patient and to implement that care if the patient desires. Interventional radiologists have recognized that clinical care requires service to the patient first and foremost.

KEYWORDS

Therapeutic intervention - physician-patient relationship - referral

REFERENCES

• 1 Ackerknecht E H. From barber-surgeon to modern doctor.  Bull Hist Med. 1984;  58 545-553
• 2 Barnet M C. The barber-surgeons of York.  Med Hist. 1968;  12 19-30
• 3 Richter J. The barber-surgeons.  Surgery. 1951;  30 1049-1061
• 4 Ring E J, Kerlan Jr R K. Clinical responsibility in interventional radiology.  Radiology. 1983;  147 285
• 5 Sichlau M J et al.. The economic impact on a general radiology group from establishing a dedicated interventional radiology service.  J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;  15 S175 , Abstract
• 6 McGraw J K, Fricke B et al.. Prospective evaluation of imaging and interventional procedures generated by an outpatient IR office.  J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;  15 S175 , Abstract
• 7 Sherman R S. The roentgenologist as a consultant.  Radiology. 1966;  87 147-148 , Abstract
• 8 Sherman R S. Whom do we serve?.  Radiology. 1966;  87 1125 , Abstract
• 9 Berlin L. The radiologist: doctor's doctor or patient's doctor.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1977;  128 702
• 10 American College of Radiology .ACR standards for the performance of screening mammography. In: Standards. Reston, VA; American College of Radiology 1990 Abstract
• 11 Berlin L. Communicating findings of radiologic examinations: whither goest the radiologist's duty?.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;  178 809-815
• 12 Sprunt W H. Whom do we serve?.  Radiology. 1966;  87 1125 , Abstract
• 13 Cassel C K. The patient-physician covenant: an affirmation of Asklepios.  Conn Med. 1996;  60 291-293
• 14 Crawshaw R, Rogers D E, Pellegrino E D et al.. Patient-physician covenant.  JAMA. 1995;  273 1553
• 15 Pellegrino E D. Nonabandonment: an old obligation revisited.  Ann Intern Med. 1995;  122 377-378
• 16 Quill T E, Cassel C K. Nonabandonment: a central obligation for physicians.  Ann Intern Med. 1995;  122 368-374
• 17 American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affaris .Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations. Chicago; American Medical Association 2002 Abstract
• 18 Eisenberg R L, Berlin L. When does malpractice become manslaughter?.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;  179 331-335
• 19 Chervenak F A, McCullough L B. The moral foundation of medical leadership: the professional virtues of the physician as fiduciary of the patient.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  184 875-879
• 20 Bailey J E. Asklepios: ancient hero of medical caring.  Ann Intern Med. 1996;  124 257-263
• 21 Harley D. James Hart of Northampton and the Calvinist critique of priest-physicians: an unpublished polemic of the early 1620s.  Med Hist. 1998;  42 362-386
• 22 Rawcliffe C. God, mammon and the physician: medicine in England before the college.  J R Coll Physicians Lond. 2000;  34 266-272