Log in

Interventional Radiology Outpatient Clinics (IROC): Clinical Impact and Patient Satisfaction

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Other
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively analyze our interventional radiology outpatient clinics (IROC) for referral patterns, impact on interventional practice, and patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

Consultations performed between 2011 and 2019 were extracted. The two consecutive years with the highest number of consultations (n2018 = 1426; n2019 = 1595) were compared for unattended consultations (i.e., scheduled consultations with patients not showing-up); initial/follow-up consultations; hospital clinician/general practitioner referrals; initial consultations with radiologists not recommending interventions; procedural conversion rate (PCR; i.e., No. initial consultations resulting in interventions over the total number of initial consultations performed for the same clinical indication). A survey was conducted in 159 patients to determine their satisfaction.

Results

Consultations increased from 2011 to 2019 by 130%. In 2018–2019, the number of unattended consultations was stable (7.0% vs 6.6%; P = .68). The referrals were for back pain (42.2%), interventional oncology (40.5%), and arteriovenous malformations (9.0%). For back pain, in 2019, there were fewer consultations with radiologists not recommending interventions and increased PCR compared to 2018 (11.9% vs. 17.7%; 88.1% vs. 82.3%; respectively; P = .01). For interventional oncology, follow-up consultations and general practitioner referrals increased in 2019 compared to 2018 (43.0% vs 35.3%; P = .01; 24.4% vs. 12.7%; P < .01; respectively). No other changes were noted. Cumulative 2018–2019 PCR was ≥ 85.4%. 99.2% responders highly appreciated their IROC experience. Quality of secretarial and medical services were the main aspects evaluated to rate the experience with IROC.

Conclusion

IROC results in high PCR. Recent changes in referral/impact on IR practice were noted with patients referred for back pain and interventional oncology.

Level of Evidence IV

Level 4, Case Series.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dotter CT, Judkins MP, Rösch J. Transluminal angioplasty in arteriosclerotic obstruction of the lower extremities. Med Times. 1969;97(7):95–108.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baum RA, Baum S. Interventional radiology: a half century of innovation. Radiology. 2014;273(2 Suppl):S75-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baerlocher MO, Owen R, Poole A, et al. Interventional radiology deserves formal recognition as a distinct medical subspecialty: a statement from the Canadian interventional radiology association. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19(1):9–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zener R, Demers V, Bilodeau A, et al. Clinical IR in Canada: the evolution of a revolution. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(4):524-530.e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Khan N, Murphy TP, Soares GM, et al. Clinical services provided by interventional radiologists to medicare beneficiaries in the United States, 2000–2003. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16(12):1753–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Edalat F, Lindquester WS, Gill AE, et al. The effects of expanding outpatient and inpatient evaluation and management services in a pediatric interventional radiology practice. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47(3):321–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Abboud SE, Soriano S, Abboud R, et al. The radiologist is in, but was it worth the wait? Radiology resident note quality in an outpatient interventional radiology clinic. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2017;46(3):177–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Palmer WE. Spinal injections for pain management. Radiology. 2016;281(3):669–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tsoumakidou G, Too CW, Koch G, et al. CIRSE guidelines on percutaneous vertebral augmentation. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2017;40(3):331–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garnon J, Doré B, Auloge P, et al. Efficacy of the vertebral body stenting system for the restoration of vertebral height in acute traumatic compression fractures in a non-osteoporotic population. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2019;42(11):1579–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen SP, Doshi TL, Constantinescu OC, et al. Effectiveness of lumbar facet joint blocks and predictive value before radiofrequency denervation: the facet treatment study (FACTS), a randomized controlled clinical trial. Anesthesiology. 2018;129(3):517–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cazzato RL, Bonichon F, Buy X, et al. Over ten years of single-institution experience in percutaneous image-guided treatment of bone metastases from differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(9):1247–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dreyfuss LD, Wells SA, Best SL, et al. Development of a risk-stratified approach for follow-up imaging after percutaneous thermal ablation of sporadic stage one renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2019;134:148–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lage A, Crombet T. Control of advanced cancer: the road to chronicity. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011;8(3):683–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Duszak R, Borst RF. Clinical services by interventional radiologists: perspectives from medicare claims over 15 years. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(12):931–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Luigi Cazzato.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

This study has obtained IRB approval from University Hospital of Strasbourg and the need for informed consent was waived.

Human or Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cazzato, R.L., de Rubeis, G., de Marini, P. et al. Interventional Radiology Outpatient Clinics (IROC): Clinical Impact and Patient Satisfaction. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 44, 118–126 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02677-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02677-1

Keywords

Navigation