Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Article Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Editorial Fellowship
    • Editorial Fellowship Team
    • Editorial Fellowship Application Process
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Impact Factor
    • Reprints
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Article Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Editorial Fellowship
    • Editorial Fellowship Team
    • Editorial Fellowship Application Process
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Impact Factor
    • Reprints
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Follow JASN on Twitter
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow JASN on RSS
  • Community Forum
Up Front MattersSpecial Article
You have accessRestricted Access

Education in Nephrology Fellowship: A Survey-Based Needs Assessment

Robert W. Rope, Kurtis A. Pivert, Mark G. Parker, Stephen M. Sozio and Sylvia Bereknyei Merell
JASN July 2017, 28 (7) 1983-1990; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2016101061
Robert W. Rope
*Division of Nephrology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kurtis A. Pivert
†American Society of Nephrology, Washington, DC;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark G. Parker
‡Division of Nephrology, Maine Medical Center and Tufts University School of Medicine, Portland, Maine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen M. Sozio
§Division of Nephrology and
‖Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sylvia Bereknyei Merell
¶Division of General Medical Disciplines, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

Educational needs assessments for nephrology fellowship training are limited. This study assessed fellows’ perceptions of current educational needs and interest in novel modalities that may improve their educational experience and quantified educational resources used by programs and fellows. We distributed a seven-question electronic survey to all United States–based fellows receiving complimentary American Society of Nephrology (ASN) membership at the end of the 2015–2016 academic year in conjunction with the ASN Nephrology Fellows Survey. One third (320 of 863; 37%) of fellows in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited positions responded. Most respondents rated overall quality of teaching in fellowship as either “good” (37%) or “excellent” (44%), and most (55%) second-year fellows felt “fully prepared” for independent practice. Common educational resources used by fellows included UpToDate, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology/Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and Nephrology Self-Assessment Program; others—including ASN’s online curricula—were used less often. Fellows indicated interest in additional instruction in several core topics, including home dialysis modalities, ultrasonography, and pathology. Respondents strongly supported interventions to improve pathology instruction and increase time for physiology and clinical review. In conclusion, current nephrology fellows perceive several gaps in training. Innovation in education and training is needed to better prepare future nephrologists for the growing challenges of kidney care.

  • education
  • fellowship
  • needs-assessment

Although the prevalence of CKD may be plateauing, there is growing demand for nephrology care. Simultaneously, decreasing interest in nephrology among medical students and residents indicates that the future workforce may not be adequate to meet the needs of patients with kidney disease.1–4 Evaluating and strengthening fellowship training and its appeal to students are keys to preparing future nephrologists to face these challenges.

Few educational needs assessments of nephrology fellowships have been conducted, but the limited literature points to several areas in need of improvement.5–8 The most recent assessment, a survey of nephrologists generally in practice for <5 years, identified several areas in which participants felt less than well prepared, including peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) modalities; performing and interpreting renal ultrasounds; end of life care; and the care of patients with pediatric kidney diseases.6 Nephrologists felt well trained in other core areas, including in-center hemodialysis, glomerular disease, hypertension, and general CKD management.

A more recent survey of Australian and New Zealand nephrologists within 10 years of completing fellowship echoed these findings, noting persistent concerns regarding a lack of preparedness in PD, HHD, and conservative care.7 Notably, this survey showed no improvement in training between cohorts from 2003 to 2009 and 2010 to 2014. Both studies identified practice management and research training as additional areas for improvement.

Although informative, these studies describe perceptions of physicians who have already completed fellowship rather than current fellows. To date, studies of current fellows have focused on specific educational topics in nephrology, such as procedures or end of life care, rather than a global assessment.9–12 This study, an educational needs assessment performed in conjunction with the annual American Society of Nephrology (ASN) Nephrology Fellows Survey, sought to determine current fellows’ educational needs and evaluate their interest in potential educational interventions. The results can help inform training programs to better prepare nephrologists for independent careers and potentially attract more candidates to the specialty.

Methods

The educational needs assessment survey was created by the lead author (R.W.R.) with guidance from an educational researcher (S.B.M.) followed by an iterative review process with ASN Workforce Committee members, including the other coauthors. The final survey consisted of seven questions on the following topics: the overall quality of teaching in fellowship, educational modalities used in fellowship, educational topics requiring additional emphasis, and likelihood to participate in novel educational interventions. The complete survey is included in Supplemental Material.

The content assessed generally aligned with that from the 2010 survey by Berns6 as well as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) nephrology program guidelines and the ACGME/American Board of Internal Medicine Milestones Project.13,14 One qualitative question asked respondents to “[d]escribe two changes that could improve [their] fellowship’s educational environment.” The survey was piloted with nephrology faculty within the lead author’s institution, and cognitive interviews were performed with medical students to evaluate the clarity of the survey. This survey development process generated confidence in the content validity of the survey.15

We distributed the survey by email in conjunction with the ASN Nephrology Fellows Survey at the end of the academic year (May and June of 2016) via the secure REDCap survey platform. Further details regarding distribution methods and strategies to increase response rates are presented in Supplemental Material. Contingency table (chi-squared) testing was used to evaluate differences in demographic characteristics between respondents and fellows nationally as well as differences in perceived preparedness for independent practice between respondents of different years. Responses for “not prepared” and “minimally prepared” were combined given reduced numbers. We analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive statistics for central tendency (mean and SD), overall counts and percentages, and frequency distributions. Analyses were conducted using GraphPad Prism software. Qualitative data were analyzed via an inductive thematic approach. The ASN Nephrology Fellows Survey was reviewed and exempted by George Washington University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The educational needs assessment survey questions were also exempted from review by Stanford University’s IRB.

Findings

Respondent Demographics

Overall, 377 of 1218 fellows to whom ASN offers complimentary membership completed the survey (31% response rate). Respondents in their first or second year of ACGME-accredited adult nephrology training were included in the analysis (320 fellows). Included respondents represented 37% (320 of 863) of ACGME-accredited fellows for the same academic year (2015–2016). Demographics are outlined in Table 1. With respect to age, sex, and race, respondents were similar to the overall cohort of fellows according to the most recent ACGME data. However, there were statistically significant differences between respondents and the ACGME cohort in the location of medical school of record (United States versus international medical schools) and medical degree (Doctor of Medicine versus Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Demographics of educational survey respondents and recipients

Quality and Educational Makeup of Fellowship Teaching

Most respondents described the overall quality of fellowship teaching as either “good” (37%) or “excellent” (44%) (Figure 1). Similarly, almost one half of second-year respondents (42%) felt “moderately prepared” for independent practice, and more than one half (55%) felt “fully prepared” (Figure 2). Second-year fellows felt more prepared than first-year fellows (P<0.01; chi-squared test for independence).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Fellows have positive perceptions of the overall quality of their training. Bars indicate the percentages of respondents for each assessment class.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

A majority of second-year fellows report moderate or full preparedness for independent practice.

Although the prior 2010 Berns6 survey did not assess overall preparation for independent practice, the percentage of respondents indicating that they were well trained and competent ranged from approximately 80% for in-center hemodialysis and transplant care to 15% for HHD care. Further characterizations of nephrology fellows’ overall preparation for independent practice are not present in the literature. In contrast, a 2001 survey of graduating internal medicine residents found that, although 91% felt very prepared to care for inpatients independently, only 48% felt very prepared for the ambulatory setting.16

Importantly, anchor effect bias within a Likert scale may increase the selection of moderate choices rather than extremes and underestimate the number of fully prepared fellows.17 However, although this subjective measure of preparedness for a future and as yet unknown job is flawed, it is likely that this preparedness gap is at least partially generated by educational deficiencies in fellowship. Educational innovations designed to improve global performance will likely reduce this gap.

Educational Modalities and Resources

Participants were asked to identify educational modalities and resources used in fellowship. Table 2 details educational modalities that respondents indicated were used in their fellowships. Traditional modalities (e.g., journal clubs, lectures, and grand rounds) predominated, with between 72% and 90% of respondents reporting their use. Other modalities, including protected time for physiology and clinical nephrology review, reading lists, simulation training for catheters or biopsies, communications training, and ultrasound training, were reported by <50% of respondents.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Educational modalities in current use (269 fellows responded)

These results suggest that the general educational structure, as perceived by fellows, is reasonably similar among programs given the prevalence of traditional educational modalities, such as curriculum lectures, journal clubs, and grand rounds. A recent survey of nephrology training program directors also indicated that these modalities are nearly universal.18 In this survey, simulation training was perceived as less prevalent than expected given the ACGME mandate to include simulation in curricula.13 Although respondents may not have understood the variety of simulation training that may be included in their fellowship and although the survey did not include all potential simulation curricula, this discrepancy raises concern. Fellows’ receptiveness to additional simulation training seemed mixed. Respondents reported that they were less likely to participate in simulation training for catheter placement, biopsies, or communication skills compared with other strategies. In contrast, the desire for biopsy and ultrasound training was emphasized in answers to a free response question about educational improvements (discussed below). Notably, there is at least preliminary evidence to support the use of simulation in nephrology education.11,19–22

Fellows were also asked to report extracurricular resources used within the last 3 months (Table 3). UpToDate was nearly universally used, with the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and the ASN Nephrology Self-Assessment Program used by a majority of respondents.23 However, several expert-led and potentially effective educational resources, such as the American Journal of Kidney Disease (AJKD) Kidney Core Curriculum, the Renal Fellow Network blog, Nephrology Journal Club, the AJKD blog, and the ASN online curricula, seem less utilized.24–28 These resources deliver content on topics requested by respondents in this survey, such as home dialysis modalities and GN, and their heightened focus on social media formats may prove useful for digital learners. Formal evaluation of their usefulness and dissemination of the content through effective avenues would be valuable for fellows and their programs.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Educational tools in current use (271 fellows responded)

Educational Content Needs and Suggestions for Improving the Educational Environment

Participants were asked to identify topics that they would like additional instruction in during fellowship (Table 4). Top desired topics (>30% responding) included home dialysis modalities (PD and HHD), radiology and pathology interpretation, obstetric nephrology, GN, and toxicology, suggesting an educational need in these areas; 10% or fewer of fellows desired further instruction in topics, such as AKI management, outpatient CKD management, or diabetic nephropathy.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Additional instruction during fellowship (266 fellows responded)

A total of 100 of 320 participants (31%) responded to the open-ended question: “Describe two changes that could improve your fellowship’s educational environment.” Responses centered on two themes: (1) structural changes and (2) desires for specific educational content. Structural changes included requests for more protected time to study independently, lectures and presentations sheltered from the competing interests of clinical care (e.g., “[a]llow ‘pager free’ time so that focus can be given to lectures”), and more faculty involvement in curricular development and implementation. Suggestions for educational content centered largely on increasing emphasis in four content areas: procedures (e.g., “[p]rovide protected time for simulations programs, i.e., reading [ultrasounds] dialysis catheter placement”), home dialysis modalities, ultrasound and other renal imaging, and renal pathology and physiology. Further representative quotes are listed in Table 5.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Changes to educational environment suggested by fellows

The content areas identified by fellows for additional educational emphasis align with those topics previously identified in the Berns6 2010 survey of recently graduated nephrologists.

The need for additional training in home dialysis modalities is especially notable given the desire to expand these patient-centered and potentially less expensive options. Without strengthening fellowship training in these key therapeutic options, the full adoption of these modalities across the specialty will be difficult.

Future Educational Innovations

Lastly, fellows were surveyed on how likely they were to participate in educational interventions reflective of the nephrology educational literature and traditional educational modalities (Table 6). Respondents viewed all potential interventions at least neutrally in aggregate. However, fellows were more likely to participate in renal pathology conferences and “dedicated time for renal physiology, pathophysiology, and/or clinical nephrology review.”

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 6.

Educational strategies (234 fellows responded)

Although interest in simulation within this survey seems mixed, the ability of simulation curricula to increase fellows’ procedural competence should continue to be explored. A lack of procedural confidence and opportunities in fellowship, beyond representing a potential educational challenge, may be a deterrent to recruiting fellows who enjoy working with their hands or are concerned about limited revenue potential in nephrology.29

The use of novel educational tools in nephrology has vastly expanded in the last two decades.30–33 Although recent literature has emphasized the potential for educational innovations to improve nephrology training, consistent outcome data are lacking.34–37 These methods, including but not limited to social media (e.g., blogs, Twitter, and physician networks), connectivity aids (e.g., audience response systems and lecture capture), video production, clinical debates, and medical gaming, provide opportunities to create interactive and captivating education placed within a clinically relevant context at all trainee levels. Importantly, although nephrology has taken a strong place in the nascent development of social media educational tools, our understanding of their efficacy remains limited.38 Assessing and expanding innovation in nephrology education may not only improve education of trainees but also, given the connection between education and interest in nephrology, help address the growing disinterest in our field.29,39,40

Parallel with these developing educational tools, the ASN has also sponsored recent workforce activities, including (1) the Kidney Tutored Research and Education for Kidney Students Program, which provides medical students core physiology education as well as ongoing mentorship and scholarship experiences that seem to increase interest in nephrology as a career choice; (2) the Mentoring and Awareness Program for Students, a community CKD screening program; and (3) the Kidney Students and Residents Program, which provides travel grants to medical students and residents to attend ASN Kidney Week.41–44 Moving forward, the longitudinal assessment of participants in these programs is a priority for the ASN leadership.

Limitations of the Survey

This study has several limitations, most notably the limited response rate. Multiple approaches to improving participation were used and are discussed in Supplemental Material. Although the response rate may limit the generalizability of the results, this survey represents, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the largest sampling of nephrology fellows within an educational study to date. Furthermore, respondents were representative of the ACGME fellows cohort in terms of age, sex, and race. The limited response rate may also have contributed to the variance in responses regarding future educational modalities, limiting our ability to discriminate between interventions. Unfortunately, increasing follow-up outreach beyond what was performed has not been associated with improved response rates, and direct financial incentives, which are effective, were unavailable (aside from a chance at winning complimentary ASN membership or Board Review Course and Update registration).45 Future studies may benefit from these incentives as well as consideration of inclusion within the national fellow in-training examination to improve response rates.

It also must be recognized that surveys may accentuate the concerns of a minority of vocal respondents, further limiting generalizability. As discussed earlier, fellows in training inherently lack the perspective that comes from independent practice, which may partially explain the reduced interest in some topics (e.g., end of life care/geriatric nephrology, nutrition, and outpatient CKD management). However, in limiting this survey to current fellows rather than practicing nephrologists, we could better assess what educational interventions are more likely to be supported by fellows. Future studies should endeavor to capture a greater totality of current fellows’ experience and further incorporate the evolving educational tools that we are developing.

Conclusion

As the specialty of nephrology addresses what it means to be a “nephrologist” and what future trainees will require for professional success, the ongoing evolution of training standards, competencies, and educational modalities will be critically important.4 This study represents the most current general educational needs assessment of United States nephrology fellows. It outlines areas for additional curricular emphasis, including home dialysis modalities, as well as the potential utility of emerging educational innovations in fellowship. Over time, continued improvements in fellowship curricula may not only improve the education of current trainees but also, help ensure the future of the specialty as well.

Disclosures

R.W.R. is an ongoing contributor to the Renal Fellow Network blog without financial interest. K.A.P. is an employee of the American Society of Nephrology. The remaining authors have no competing interests.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the members of the American Society of Nephrology Workforce Committee as well as investigators from the George Washington University Health Workforce Institute research team (led by Edward Salsberg and Leah Masselink) for their assistance in developing and implementing this project. In addition, we thank the members of Stanford’s Rathmann Medical Education Fellowship team for their guidance and support.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

  • This article contains supplemental material online at http://jasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1681/ASN.2016101061/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Murphy D,
    2. McCulloch CE,
    3. Lin F,
    4. Banerjee T,
    5. Bragg-Gresham JL,
    6. Eberhardt MS,
    7. Morgenstern H,
    8. Pavkov ME,
    9. Saran R,
    10. Powe NR,
    11. Hsu C-Y; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chronic Kidney Disease Surveillance Team
    : Trends in prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States. Ann Intern Med 165: 473–481, 2016pmid:27479614
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. United States Renal Data System
    : 2015 USRDS Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States, Bethesda, MD, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2015
    1. Parker MG,
    2. Pivert KA,
    3. Ibrahim T,
    4. Molitoris BA
    : Recruiting the next generation of nephrologists. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 20: 326–335, 2013pmid:23809285
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Berns JS,
    2. Ellison DH,
    3. Linas SL,
    4. Rosner MH
    : Training the next generation’s nephrology workforce. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 1639–1644, 2014pmid:24970877
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Kimmel PL,
    2. Bosch JP
    : Effectiveness of renal fellowship training for subsequent clinical practice. Am J Kidney Dis 18: 249–256, 1991pmid:1867182
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Berns JS
    : A survey-based evaluation of self-perceived competency after nephrology fellowship training. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 490–496, 2010pmid:20089491
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Beaton TJ,
    2. Krishnasamy R,
    3. Toussaint ND,
    4. Phoon RK,
    5. Gray NA
    : Nephrology training in Australia and New Zealand: A survey of outcomes and adequacy. Nephrology (Carlton) 22: 35–42, 2017pmid:26732068
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Mehrotra R,
    2. Blake P,
    3. Berman N,
    4. Nolph KD
    : An analysis of dialysis training in the United States and Canada. Am J Kidney Dis 40: 152–160, 2002pmid:12087573
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Combs SA,
    2. Culp S,
    3. Matlock DD,
    4. Kutner JS,
    5. Holley JL,
    6. Moss AH
    : Update on end-of-life care training during nephrology fellowship: A cross-sectional national survey of fellows. Am J Kidney Dis 65: 233–239, 2015pmid:25245300
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Berns JS,
    2. O’Neill WC
    : Performance of procedures by nephrologists and nephrology fellows at U.S. nephrology training programs. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3: 941–947, 2008pmid:18417748
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Clark E,
    2. Barsuk JH,
    3. Karpinski J,
    4. McQuillan R
    : Achieving procedural competence during nephrology fellowship training: Current requirements and educational research. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 2244–2249, 2016pmid:27269612
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Sachdeva M,
    2. Ross DW,
    3. Shah HH
    : Renal ultrasound, dialysis catheter placement, and kidney biopsy experience of US nephrology fellows. Am J Kidney Dis 68: 187–192, 2016pmid:27113506
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education: ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Nephrology, 2016. Available at: http://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/148_nephrology_int_med_2016.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2016
  11. ↵
    Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and American Board of Internal Medicine: The Internal Medicine Subspecialty Milestones Project, 2016. Available at: http://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Milestones/InternalMedicineSubspecialtyMilestones.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2016
  12. ↵
    1. Beckman TJ,
    2. Cook DA,
    3. Mandrekar JN
    : What is the validity evidence for assessments of clinical teaching? J Gen Intern Med 20: 1159–1164, 2005pmid:16423109
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Blumenthal D,
    2. Gokhale M,
    3. Campbell EG,
    4. Weissman JS
    : Preparedness for clinical practice: Reports of graduating residents at academic health centers. JAMA 286: 1027–1034, 2001pmid:11559286
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Bishop PA,
    2. Herron RL
    : Use and misuse of the likert item responses and other ordinal measures. Int J Exerc Sci 8: 297–302, 2015pmid:27182418
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Liebman SE,
    2. Moore CA,
    3. Monk RD,
    4. Rizvi MS
    : What are we doing? A survey of United States nephrology fellowship program directors [published online ahead of print December 5, 2016]. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol doi:10.2215/CJN.06530616pmid:27920031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Noble VE,
    2. Murray AF,
    3. Capp R,
    4. Sylvia-Reardon MH,
    5. Steele DJ,
    6. Liteplo A
    : Ultrasound assessment for extravascular lung water in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Time course for resolution. Chest 135: 1433–1439, 2009pmid:19188552
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Oliver SW,
    2. Patel RK,
    3. Ali KA,
    4. Geddes CC,
    5. MacKinnon B
    : Teaching percutaneous renal biopsy using unfixed human cadavers. BMC Nephrol 16: 209, 2015pmid:26652156
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Schell JO,
    2. Green JA,
    3. Tulsky JA,
    4. Arnold RM
    : Communication skills training for dialysis decision-making and end-of-life care in nephrology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8: 675–680, 2013pmid:23143502
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Prince LK,
    2. Abbott KC,
    3. Green F,
    4. Little D,
    5. Nee R,
    6. Oliver JD 3rd,
    7. Bohen EM,
    8. Yuan CM
    : Expanding the role of objectively structured clinical examinations in nephrology training. Am J Kidney Dis 63: 906–912, 2014pmid:24613400
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    American Society of Nephrology: ASN NephSAP. Available at: http://www.asn-online.org/education/nephsap. Accessed October 4, 2016
  19. ↵
    American Journal of Kidney Disease: Core Curriculum in Nephrology, 2016. Available at: http://www.ajkd.org/content/corecurriculum. Accessed October 4, 2016
  20. Renal Fellow Network: Renal Fellow Network Blog. Available at: http://renalfellow.blogspot.com. Accessed October 4, 2016
  21. NephJC: Nephrology Journal Club. Available at: http://www.nephjc.com. Accessed October 4, 2016
  22. American Journal of Kidney Disease: Blog AJKD. Available at: https://ajkdblog.org. Accessed October 4, 2016
  23. ↵
    American Society of Nephrology: ASN Online Curricula. Available at: http://www.asn-online.org/education/distancelearning/curricula. Accessed October 4, 2016
  24. ↵
    1. Jhaveri KD,
    2. Sparks MA,
    3. Shah HH,
    4. Khan S,
    5. Chawla A,
    6. Desai T,
    7. Iglesia E,
    8. Ferris M,
    9. Parker MG,
    10. Kohan DE
    : Why not nephrology? A survey of US internal medicine subspecialty fellows. Am J Kidney Dis 61: 540–546, 2013pmid:23332603
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Bayefsky SD,
    2. Shah HH,
    3. Jhaveri KD
    : Nephrology education for medical students: A narrative review. Ren Fail 38: 1151–1159, 2016pmid:27197981
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Jhaveri KD,
    2. Sparks MA,
    3. Shah HH
    : Novel educational approaches to enhance learning and interest in nephrology. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 20: 336–346, 2013pmid:23809286
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Roberts JK,
    2. Sparks MA,
    3. Lehrich RW
    : Medical student attitudes toward kidney physiology and nephrology: A qualitative study. Ren Fail 38: 1683–1693, 2016pmid:27758129
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Woods M,
    2. Rosenberg ME
    : Educational tools: Thinking outside the box. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 518–526, 2016pmid:26536900
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Yuan CM,
    2. Prince LK,
    3. Zwettler AJ,
    4. Nee R,
    5. Oliver JD 3rd,
    6. Abbott KC
    : Assessing achievement in nephrology training: Using clinic chart audits to quantitatively screen competency. Am J Kidney Dis 64: 737–743, 2014pmid:25156904
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Desai T,
    2. Stankeyeva D,
    3. Chapman A,
    4. Bailey J
    : Nephrology fellows show consistent use of, and improved knowledge from, a nephrologist-programmed teaching instrument. J Nephrol 24: 345–350, 2011pmid:20954135
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Topf JM,
    2. Hiremath S
    : Social media, medicine and the modern journal club. Int Rev Psychiatry 27: 147–154, 2015pmid:25906989
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Shah HH,
    2. Mattana J,
    3. Jhaveri KD
    : Evidence-based nephrology-rheumatology debates: A novel educational experience during nephrology fellowship training. Ren Fail 35: 911–913, 2013pmid:23682689
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Hamm MP,
    2. Chisholm A,
    3. Shulhan J,
    4. Milne A,
    5. Scott SD,
    6. Klassen TP,
    7. Hartling L
    : Social media use by health care professionals and trainees: A scoping review. Acad Med 88: 1376–1383, 2013pmid:23887004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Pivert KA: Nephrology Match AY 2017–Preliminary Results: Data Brief. Available at: https://www.asn-online.org/education/training/workforce/ASN_Data_Brief_Nephrology_Match_AY_2017_Preliminary_Results.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2017
  31. ↵
    1. Shah HH,
    2. Jhaveri KD,
    3. Sparks MA,
    4. Mattana J
    : Career choice selection and satisfaction among US adult nephrology fellows. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 1513–1520, 2012pmid:22745273
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    American Society of Nephrology: Medical Students: Kidney TREKS. Available at: http://www.asn-online.org/education/training/students/treks. Accessed January 31, 2017
    1. Maursetter LJ,
    2. Stern LD,
    3. Sozio SM,
    4. Patel AB,
    5. Rao R,
    6. Shah HH,
    7. Leight K,
    8. Okusa MD,
    9. Zeidel ML,
    10. Parker MG
    : Enhancing nephrology career interest through the ASN kidney TREKS program. J Am Soc Nephrol 27: 1604–1607, 2016pmid:27026364
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. American Society of Nephrology: Medical Students: Kidney MAPS. Available at: https://www.asn-online.org/education/training/students/maps. Accessed January 31, 2017
  34. ↵
    American Society of Nephrology: Kidney STARS (Students and Residents) Application. Available at: https://www.asn-online.org/grants/travel/details.aspx?app=MSR. Accessed January 31, 2017
  35. ↵
    1. Cho YI,
    2. Johnson TP,
    3. Vangeest JB
    : Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: A meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof 36: 382–407, 2013pmid:23975761
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ACGME: ACGME Data Resource Book: Academic Year 2015–2016, Chicago, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, 2016
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 28 (7)
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 28, Issue 7
July 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in JASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Education in Nephrology Fellowship: A Survey-Based Needs Assessment
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Education in Nephrology Fellowship: A Survey-Based Needs Assessment
Robert W. Rope, Kurtis A. Pivert, Mark G. Parker, Stephen M. Sozio, Sylvia Bereknyei Merell
JASN Jul 2017, 28 (7) 1983-1990; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2016101061

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Education in Nephrology Fellowship: A Survey-Based Needs Assessment
Robert W. Rope, Kurtis A. Pivert, Mark G. Parker, Stephen M. Sozio, Sylvia Bereknyei Merell
JASN Jul 2017, 28 (7) 1983-1990; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2016101061
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Findings
    • Conclusion
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

Up Front Matters

  • Molecular Characterization of Membranous Nephropathy: Quo Vadis?
  • More than a Marker: Arginase-1 in Kidney Repair
  • Enabling Patient Choice: The “Deciding Not to Decide” Option for Older Adults Facing Dialysis Decisions
Show more Up Front Matters

Special Article

  • A Unifying Approach for GFR Estimation: Recommendations of the NKF-ASN Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Disease
  • Analysis of Performance Trends from 2010–2019 on the American Board of Internal Medicine Nephrology Certifying Exam
  • Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Diseases: An Interim Report from the NKF-ASN Task Force
Show more Special Article

Cited By...

  • Increasing Peritoneal Dialysis Use in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Will It Go Viral?
  • A Night Float System in Nephrology Fellowship: A Mixed Methods Evaluation
  • The Electronic Medical Record and Nephrology Fellowship Education in the United States: An Opinion Survey
  • Trends in Peritoneal Dialysis Use in the United States after Medicare Payment Reform
  • Attitudes toward Peritoneal Dialysis among Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis Medical Directors: Are We Preaching to the Right Choir?
  • Retooling Nephrology with Ultrasound
  • Renal Fellow Network: Past and Future
  • Survey of Kidney Biopsy Clinical Practice and Training in the United States
  • Developing Tools for Analysis of Renal Genomic Data: An Invitation to Participate
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • education
  • fellowship
  • needs-assessment

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Annual Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Resources
  • Editorial Fellowship Program
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • JASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About JASN
  • JASN Email Alerts
  • JASN Key Impact Information
  • JASN Podcasts
  • JASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1046-6673 Online ISSN - 1533-3450

Powered by HighWire