Table 2 Results of survey
From: Clinical and endovascular practice in interventional radiology: a contemporary European analysis
Question | Response, % (n) |
|---|---|
Years of IR practice | |
< 10 | 37 (70) |
10–20 | 30 (56) |
> 20 | 33 (63) |
Time dedicated to IR | |
0–20% | 6 (12) |
20–40% | 13 (24) |
40–60% | 16 (30) |
60–80% | 25 (48) |
80–100% | 40 (75) |
IR day-beds | |
Yes | 61 (114) |
No | 39 (73) |
Setting of day-bed | |
Multispecialty day-ward | 36 (41) |
Surgical ward | 24 (27) |
Radiology department | 18 (20) |
IR ward | 12 (14) |
Medical ward | 9 (10) |
Other | 1 (2) |
IR inpatient admission privileges | |
Yes | 55 (103) |
No | 45 (85) |
Dedicated IR inpatient beds | |
Yes | 28 (53) |
No | 72 (135) |
Perform ward rounds | |
Yes | 36 (65) |
No | 64 (116) |
IR outpatient clinic | |
Yes | 42 (78) |
No | 58 (110) |
Participate in 24/7 IR on-call | |
Yes | 73 (137) |
No | 27 (52) |
Dedicated IR nurses | |
Yes | 78 (145) |
No | 22 (41) |
Nursing support on call | |
Yes, dedicated IR nurse | 61 (115) |
Yes, non-IR nurse | 6 (11) |
No | 33 (63) |
Technologist support on-call | |
Yes | 61 (116) |
No | 39 (73) |
IR trainees at your centre | |
Yes | 68 (124) |
No | 32 (59) |
Perform endovascular PAD interventions | |
Yes | 81 (153) |
No | 19 (36) |
Percentage of endovascular PAD treated by IR | |
0–20% | 10 (15) |
20–40% | 10 (15) |
40–60% | 12 (19) |
60–80% | 15 (22) |
80–100% | 53 (81) |
Hybrid OR in the hospital | |
Yes | 37 (70) |
No | 63 (117) |
IR access to hybrid OR | |
Yes | 87 (61) |
No | 13 (9) |