AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cypel, Y. S.
Right arrow Articles by Sunshine, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cypel, Y. S.
Right arrow Articles by Sunshine, J. H.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2003; 181:643-647
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Characteristics of Mixed Diagnostic Radiology-Radiation Oncology Practices

Yasmin S. Cypel1 and Jonathan H. Sunshine1,2

1 Research Department, American College of Radiology, 1891 Preston White Dr., Reston, VA 20191.
2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St., New Haven, CT 06520.

OBJECTIVE. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of "mixed practices"—that is, practices performing both diagnostic radiology and radiation oncology services—and to compare mixed practices with multiradiologist diagnostic radiology-only practices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. In 1999, the American College of Radiology surveyed 970 practices by mail, using a 65-item questionnaire. A response rate of 66% was achieved. Responses were weighted such that they were representative of all the radiology practices in the United States. The estimates cited in this article were primarily drawn from this 1999 survey.

RESULTS. Mixed practices were nearly evenly divided between large (area population, >= 1 million) and small metropolitan areas (area population, from 50,000 to 1 million). We found that 63% of mixed practices were nonacademic private practices; 27% were academic. Approximately 50% contained 15 or more members. Mixed practices were predominantly owned by members of the practice and predominantly served both hospitals and nonhospital settings. At least 90% of mixed practices performed mammography, imaging-guided breast biopsy, sonography, and nuclear medicine.We found that compared with multiradiologist diagnostic radiology-only practices, mixed practices were larger and were more likely to be academic, to serve both hospital and nonhospital settings, and to perform interventional and nuclear medicine procedures.

CONCLUSION. The characteristics of a mixed practice differ from those of a multiradiologist diagnostic radiology-only practice.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. H. Sunshine, R. S. Lewis, and M. Bhargavan
A Portrait of Interventional Radiologists in the United States
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2005; 185(5): 1103 - 1112.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. H. Sunshine and Y. S. Cypel
Types of Procedures Performed by Diagnostic Radiology Practices: Past Patterns and Future Directions
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2004; 183(5): 1193 - 1201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.