One of the best read ideas of 2012 that's going to ignored...Time to close speciality training

A friend of mine, Dave Fiorella, published one of the most widely read paper in the radiology literature this year.  

Should neurointerventional fellowship training be suspended indefinitely? -- Fiorella et al. 4 (5): 315 -- Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery

He argues that the world has enough of his own subspecialty, neuro interventional surgery (NIS), and that training programs should voluntarily close.  You may not have heard of NIS.  These physicians care for a small group of patients that typically need blood vessels in their brain opened or closed.  Examples include stroke patients (blocked vessels need to be opened) and aneurysms (diseased vessels need to be closed). People like Dave do their work by running a small tube, a catheter, from the groin up to the head and then inject things through these tubes to open or close the vessels-pretty cool stuff!  and a huge advance from 25 years ago.  Before NIS, neurosurgeons would open your skull, do their work, and close you up.  And now, Dave says we have enough.  Why?

After training (which included NIS) my first job was at a good, but smaller community hospital outside Seattle.  In part, I was hired to build a stroke program and grow neurosurgical services.  However, these skills require constant practice, and 6 months at this hospital I had only done a handful of cases.  As far as the professional requirements were concerned, I was competent to do these procedures.  However, deep down I wasn't so sure. Within 18 months I gave up doing these procedures, preferring to send patients to the university up the street.  

A coiled aneurysm.  The big ball is the aneurysm.  
Imagine pushing a wire into a basketball, replacing air  with wire.

My experience is similar to many physicians.  There simple aren't enough patients needing high end procedures to go around.  As a result, skills and quality suffer.  Unfortunately, hospitals want to compete.  Every center wants to be a stroke center or a chest pain center, a (you fill in) center of excellence.  In part this is done for branding, in part this is done for contracting.  Insurers want to simplify the process and get all the services they need from a few hospital partners.  The big loser here is the patient.  Many studies have documented a relationship between volume and outcomes (https://leapfroghospitalsurvey.org/web/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Fact_Sheet_EBHR.pdf).

You or a loved one may need these services.  A physician will come to talk to you about the risks (you could die), benefits (the procedure may help you), and options (they hopefully mention other treatment alternatives, but they may not mention that you can go down the street to another facility).  Your outcome will be tied to the experience and volume the physician has done.

If there were fewer NIS physicians, there would be more cases/practitioner and better outcomes.  But the likelihood of programs are going to voluntarily shut down- that's not going to happen as long as hospitals are hiring.  There is a way out of this dilemma.

At the consumer level, you should ask the hard questions.  Doctor, how many of these have you done of these, when was the last time you did one of these?  Is there anyone else who has done more of these procedures in a 20 mile radius?  At the payer level, there should be a a requirement for a certain experience before paying a provider, and then there should be recertification, a certain number of on going cases to keep getting paid.  Ultimately, the payer should ask for outcomes from the provider, information about how their patients are doing 3, 6 and 12 months after the procedure.  

In short, Dave is right.  Practice makes perfect.  There just needs to be a business model supporting the desired (patient) outcome.