Stakeholders Weigh in on IR/DR Certification Model
By John A. Kaufman, MD, MS, ABR President-elect; James B. Spies, MD, MPH, ABR Associate Executive Director for Interventional Radiology; and Brent Wagner, MD, MBA, ABR Executive Director
2025;18(1):7
The Diagnostic Radiology Certifying Exam will be changing to an oral format in 2028. This past August, the ABR announced that it had retained a third-party healthcare communication and marketing firm to facilitate discussions with key stakeholder groups, including professional societies and program director organizations, regarding the current Interventional Radiology/Diagnostic Radiology (IR/DR) Certifying Exam. The goal was to solicit opinions and concerns about whether the certification process for IR/DR is perceived to be sufficiently equivalent to DR certification, especially as it relates to the diagnostic elements that may be a significant part of the clinical practice of those who have earned an IR/DR certificate. ABR leadership expressly stated that our role in these initial steps would be active listening and that we had not come to any conclusions about the adequacy of the status quo, existing perceptions of the interventional radiology community, the full range of challenges of the current testing paradigm, or potential solutions if change is deemed necessary.
The process included approximately 30 remote interviews, an optional online survey that gathered opinions from association and society members, and nine online focus groups.1
The focus groups, in total, involved more than 100 participants, and there was an educational component of these meetings (attendees learned as the sessions progressed). The discussions were an important factor in helping participants formulate opinions that often evolved during the session. Often, individuals who came to the session with a belief that no change is required would end by offering suggestions for how a change might be implemented.
Among the questions posed to the groups, we asked whether there was a potential imbalance created by the planned introduction of the new DR Oral Certifying Exam and, if so, whether the imbalance would create the need for change in the IR/DR certification process.
There were general trends, with near universal support of the appropriateness, rigor, and scope of the IR/DR Oral Certifying Exam. There was also a majority opinion that the imbalance of the DR domain coverage in the new model, when comparing the future “DR certification” to current “IR/DR certification,” could create the perception that some modification was needed to the DR portion of the IR/DR exam process. A wide range of opinions were offered regarding what those modifications might be, but the discussions during this phase were primarily intended to focus on defining the potential problem rather than crafting solutions.
We are extremely grateful for the generous involvement of a broad range of engaged, thoughtful stakeholders. Although the ABR has not reached any conclusions on what, if anything, might be done, we will give at least two years’ notice before any significant change to our exam process is implemented for IR/DR certification. We remain committed to offering credible specialty certification that provides significant value to our diplomates and the patients they serve.
1Invited groups included leadership from the American College of Radiology, Women in Interventional Radiology, Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), Association of Program Directors in Radiology, Association of Program Directors in Interventional Radiology, Association of Chiefs in Interventional Radiology, ABR IR/DR volunteer oral examiner panels, SIR Early Career Section, SIR Resident and Fellow Section, and the Residency Review Committee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.