CMAJ • February 27, 2007; 176 (5). doi:10.1503/cmaj.060727.
© 2007 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Baerlocher, M. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Baerlocher, M. O.
Related Collections
Right arrow Interventional radiology
Right arrow Organization of health care

Pulse

Canada's slow adoption of new technologies adds burden to health care system

Mark O. Baerlocher

Toronto

It is interesting to compare how developed countries adopt new technologies. In terms of novel minimally invasive treatments, these are often within the domain of interventional radiology.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) and the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA) recently commissioned the Millennium Research Group Inc. (a medical devices market research company) to produce a report on the status and outlook of interventional radiology in Canada.1

That March 2006 report estimates a number of striking comparisons among the G7 nations (Fig. 1). These estimates suggest that Canada performed the fewest number of interventional radiology procedures per million population and the US the most. If current trends continue, the forecasted number of procedures will be 3.2 times greater in the US than in Canada.


Figure 110
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1: Estimated numbers of interventional radiology treatments per million population in G7 nations in 2005 and predicted numbers for 2010.

 

Extrapolating from these estimates, the report suggests potential savings if existing surgical procedures for 8 diseases were replaced with interventional radiology procedures, in appropriate circumstances (Table 1). The result could be an estimated 402 Canadian lives and $180.3 million in direct health care costs saved annually. Although rigorous scientific methods were not used in generating these data, the table nonetheless provides much food for thought.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1.

 

The commissioned report's recommendations included:

• Improve awareness of interventional radiology and its benefits among referring physicians, hospital administrators, residents and fellows, medical students and the public.

• Establish a Health Canada task force to address the challenges of interventional radiology in Canada.

• Hire more interventional radiologists to accommodate the increasing workload.

• Increase funding for interventional radiology for training, equipment and remuneration, to support increasing clinical duties and equalize remuneration to diagnostic and interventional radiologists.

• Help interventional radiologists to move toward becoming clinical specialists (e.g., by consulting, diagnosing and conducting postadmission follow-up). The Canadian government, hospital administrators, CAR and CIRA should support this move by instituting suitable consulting fees, creating designated consult rooms and beds, and providing other support necessary to conduct a successful interventional radiology practice.

This report is indeed food for thought and suggests the need for third-party, objective research into the myriad possible reasons for Canada's low usage rates, with the eventual goal of formulating public policy. The ultimate aim is to ensure that the right person gets the right intervention.


*    Footnotes
 
Acknowledgement: I thank Ken McLaren from Millennium Research Group (MRG) for his help with providing these data. Mr. McLaren is the primary author of the MRG report on interventional radiology in Canada.



*    REFERENCE
Top
 REFERENCE
 

  1. Millennium Research Group (MRG) Inc. Non-invasive image-guided diagnosis and therapy for Canadians. Toronto: MRG; 2006.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CMAJHome page
M. O. Baerlocher and M. R. Asch
Interventional radiology in palliative care
Can. Med. Assoc. J., March 13, 2007; 176(6): 762 - 763.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Baerlocher, M. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Baerlocher, M. O.
Related Collections
Right arrow Interventional radiology
Right arrow Organization of health care