Time for IR to change the paradigm of failure

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in the recent article by Adams and Kenny [1]. The reasons why interventional radiology (IR) should pursue independent specialty status are eloquently presented and argued and will hopefully broker debate within the IR community in Europe and further afield. Although the editorial by Adams and Kenny is based on the experience in the UK, it resonates with the status of IR in other European countries in that no European country has full IR independent specialty status. Unlike the structured training in the UK encompassing 3 years of diagnostic radiology training followed by 2–3 years of funded IR training, in many European countries access to IR training is haphazard, poorly defined and interested parties often have to seek out a mentor who will hopefully allow them to develop the skills necessary to practice some of the IR curriculum. Moreover, many countries do not have structured 1- or 2-year training programs in IR and access to IR training is piecemeal and exposure can be very varied depending on the training institution.