Your Assistance Needed: Proposed IAC Vascular Testing Standards Ignore IR Expertise, Please Submit Opposing Comments by Nov. 5

By Marshall E. Hicks, MD, FSIR
SIR President

Dear Colleagues,
The Society of Interventional Radiology needs your assistance: I encourage you to oppose proposed Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Standards and Guidelines for Vascular Testing Accreditation. The proposed standards recommend the Registered Physician in Vascular Interpretation (RPVI) credential or American Society of Neuroimaging (ASN) credentialing process over other training options—ignoring IR’s unique training and skill set. 

I ask that each SIR member copy and paste the below comments to the IAC review website or provide an opinion in your own words by the Nov. 5 review deadline. Please note: SIR is conveniently providing comments on the proposed standards because responses are limited to 1,500 characters (with spaces). 
****************************************************************************************************************
I strongly object to the comment that the RPVI credential or ASN credentialing process is recommended over all other training options.

1. Interpretation of vascular studies is already part of the training and board certification of radiologists. Radiologists have didactic and practical training in ultrasound and its interpretation, including vascular ultrasound, as well as formal extensive training in ultrasound physics and theory. Because this training includes vascular evaluation as well as evaluation of the end organ integrating multiple imaging modalities, one could argue that DR board certification is the superior alternative.

2. While the prerequisites for the RPVI and ASN include some of the elements in the IAC standard, there is no independent validating evidence that passing either exam qualifies one to interpret vascular studies.

3. By recommending the RPVI/ASN credentialing process without including board certifications in its list of physician credentials, the IAC vascular testing board is essentially creating a monopoly and abandoning the original multispecialty philosophy of ICAVL. This sort of recommendation (with or without the stated goal of eventually requiring the RPVI or ASN) will only lead to further division in the various physician specialties.

If IAC wants to strengthen the training and experience requirements for medical directors, radiology board certification must be clearly acknowledged as adequate for credentialing in this guideline.
*************************************************************************************************************** 
Here's how to submit comments on the proposed IAC Standards and Guidelines for Vascular Testing Accreditation.  

• Go to the IAC review website.

• Scroll down to the section for IAC Vascular Testing Standards and Guidelines Available for Comment.

• Select 1.1.1.4A and 1.3.1.4A: Medical Director and Medical Staff Section/ Changed.

• A window will expand with the description of the standard and the proposed change on the left.

• On the right, fill in your name and comment in the boxes provided. Comments on the proposed standards are limited to 1,500 characters with spaces.

• Hit Submit.

We are a small society, and—with your help—we can continue to make a big footprint on modern medicine. Thank you in advance for supporting the IR community on this important matter!

Resource
Download the IAC vascular testing standards.

Take a SIR-vey: Proposed IAC Vascular Testing Standards
SIR would like to know: Please indicate if you commented or will comment on the proposed IAC vascular testing standards.