Dataset Information

"What do you think about nephrology?" A national survey of internal medicine residents.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Interest in nephrology has been declining among internal medicine residents but the reasons behind this observation are not well characterized. Our objective was to evaluate factors influencing residents' choice of subspecialty.

Methods

This is a mixed-method QUAL-QUAN design study that used the results of our previously published qualitative analysis on residents' perception of nephrology to create and pilot a questionnaire of 60 questions. The final questionnaire was distributed to 26 programs across the United States and a total of 1992 residents. We calculated response rates and tabulated participant characteristics and percentage of participant responses. We categorized choice of fellowship into 2 medical categories (Highly Sought After vs. Less Sought After) and fitted a logistic regression model of choosing a highly vs. less sought after fellowship.

Results

Four hundred fifteen out of 1992 (21%) US residents responded to the survey. Of the 268 residents planning to pursue fellowship training, 67 (25%) selected a less sought after fellowship. Female sex was associated with significantly higher odds of selecting a less sought after fellowship (OR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.47, 4.74). Major factors deterring residents from pursuing nephrology were perception of inadequate financial compensation, broad scope of clinical practice and complexity of patient population. We observed a decline in exposure to nephrology during the clinical years of medical school with only 35.4% of respondents rotating in nephrology versus 76.8% in residency. The quality of nephrology education was rated less positively during clinical medical school years (median of 50 on a 0-100 point scale) compared to the pre-clinical years (median 60) and residency (median 75).

Conclusion

Our study attempts to explain the declining interest in nephrology. Results suggest potential targets for improvement: diversified trainee exposure, sub-specialization of nephrology, and increased involvement of nephrologists in the education of trainees.

SUBMITTER: Nakhoul GN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8140430 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFewer trainees are choosing to pursue nephrology. Only 60.1% of positions filled in the 2018 fellowship Match, which is concerning given the rising prevalence of end-stage kidney disease. Identifying factors influential in career choices is critical to inform focused approaches to recruit qualified applicants.MethodsTo understand perceptions of nephrology and assess factors influential in specialty choice among early career trainees, an anonymous survey was distributed to upper-level medical students and internal medicine residents at programs identified through the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and American Medical Association's Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA).ResultsOf 4199 recipients, 644 (15.3%) participants responded, including 315 upper-level medical students, 308 residents, and three chief residents from 30 institutions. An interest in the subject was the most critical factor in selecting a specialty (92%). Other key factors included a suitable work-life balance (73%), access to mentors (70%), and subject exposure (66%). Lack of interest was the most frequently-cited reason to forgo a nephrology fellowship (79%), followed by concerns regarding remuneration (43%), work-life balance (39%), and subject exposure (32%). In free-text responses, several participants described frustration with managing patients on hemodialysis and desired combined training with specialties such as critical care. Respondents who had considered nephrology at any point cited an interest in physiology or interface with a mentor as key driving factors.ConclusionsA lack of interest in and exposure to the subject, perceptions of poor earning potential and patient nonadherence, and concerns regarding work-life balance were influential in participants' decisions to forgo nephrology training. Incorporating novel educational tools and broadening the scope of the nephrology elective, highlighting ongoing areas of clinical and research innovation, expanding opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and procedural skills, and cultivating strategies to reduce burnout may be useful areas on which to focus future recruitment efforts.

Project description:BackgroundInterest in nephrology careers among internal medicine residents in the United States is declining. Our objective was to assess the impact of the presence of a nephrology fellowship training program on perceptions and career interest in nephrology among internal medicine residents. A secondary objective was to identify commonly endorsed negative perceptions of nephrology among internal medicine residents.MethodsThis was a repeated cross-sectional survey of internal medicine residents before (Group 1) and 3 years after (Group 2) the establishment of nephrology fellowship programs at two institutions. The primary outcome was the percentage of residents indicating nephrology as a career interest in Group 1 vs. Group 2. Secondary outcomes included the frequency that residents agreed with negative statements about nephrology.Results131 (80.9%) of 162 residents completed the survey. 19 (14.8%) residents indicated interest in a nephrology career, with 8 (6.3%) indicating nephrology as their first choice. There was no difference in career interest in nephrology between residents who were exposed to nephrology fellows during residency training (Group 2) and residents who were not (Group 1). The most commonly endorsed negative perceptions of nephrology were: nephrology fellows have long hours/burdensome call (36 [28.1%] of residents agreed or strongly agreed), practicing nephrologists must take frequent/difficult call (35 [27.6%] agreed or strongly agreed), and nephrology has few opportunities for procedures (35 [27.3%] agreed or strongly agreed). More residents in Group 2 agreed that nephrology is poorly paid (8.9% in Group 1 vs. 20.8% in Group 2, P = 0.04), whereas more residents in Group 1 agreed that nephrologists must take frequent/difficult call (40.0% in Group 1 vs. 18.1% in Group 2, P = 0.02).ConclusionsThe initiation of a nephrology fellowship program was not associated with an increase in internal medicine residents' interest in nephrology careers. Residents endorsed several negative perceptions of nephrology, which may affect career choice.

Project description:BackgroundSingle-center studies have reported residents experience barriers to accessing supervising physicians overnight, but no national dataset has described barriers perceived by residents or the association between supervision models and perceived barriers.ObjectiveTo explore residents' perception of barriers to accessing overnight supervision.DesignQuestions about overnight supervision and barriers to accessing it were included on the American College of Physicians Internal Medicine In-Training Examination® (IM-ITE®) Resident Survey in Fall 2017.ParticipantsAll US-based internal medicine residents who completed the 2017 IM-ITE®. Responses from 20,744 residents (84%) were analyzed.Main measuresFor our main outcome, we calculated percentages of responses for eight barriers and tested for association with the presence or absence of nocturnists. For our secondary outcome, we categorized free-text responses enumerating barriers from all residents into the five Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) categories to elucidate future areas for study or intervention.Key resultsInternal medicine residents working in hospitals without nocturnists more commonly reported having at least one barrier to accessing a supervising physician "always" or "most of the time" (5075/9842, 51.6%) compared to residents in hospitals with nocturnists (3074/10,902, 28.2%, p < 0.001). Among residents in hospitals without nocturnists, the most frequently reported barrier to accessing attending supervision was attendings not being present in the hospital (30.4% "always" or "most of the time"); residents in hospitals with nocturnists most frequently reported desire to make their own decisions as a barrier to contacting attendings (15.7% "always" or "most of the time"). Free-text responses from residents with and without nocturnists most commonly revealed organization (47%) barriers to accessing supervision; 28% cited person barriers, and 23% cited tools/technology barriers.ConclusionsPresence of nocturnists is associated with fewer reported barriers to contacting supervising physicians overnight. Organizational culture, work schedules, desire for independence, interpersonal interactions, and technology may present important barriers.

Project description:BackgroundMedical residents are routinely entrusted with transitions of care, yet little is known about the duration or content of their perceived responsibility for patients they discharge from the hospital.ObjectiveTo examine the duration and content of internal medicine residents' perceived responsibility for patients they discharge from the hospital. The secondary objective was to determine whether specific individual experiences and characteristics correlate with perceived responsibility.DesignMulti-site, cross-sectional 24-question survey delivered via email or paper-based form.ParticipantsInternal medicine residents (post-graduate years 1-3) at nine university and community-based internal medicine training programs in the United States.Main measuresPerceived responsibility for patients after discharge as measured by a previously developed single-item tool for duration of responsibility and novel domain-specific questions assessing attitudes towards specific transition of care behaviors.Key resultsOf 817 residents surveyed, 469 responded (57.4 %). One quarter of residents (26.1 %) indicated that their responsibility for patients ended at discharge, while 19.3 % reported perceived responsibility extending beyond 2 weeks. Perceived duration of responsibility did not correlate with level of training (P = 0.57), program type (P = 0.28), career path (P = 0.12), or presence of burnout (P = 0.59). The majority of residents indicated they were responsible for six of eight transitional care tasks (85.1-99.3 % strongly agree or agree). Approximately half of residents (57 %) indicated that it was their responsibility to directly contact patients' primary care providers at discharge. and 21.6 % indicated that it was their responsibility to ensure that patients attended their follow-up appointments.ConclusionsInternal medicine residents demonstrate variability in perceived duration of responsibility for recently discharged patients. Neither the duration nor the content of residents' perceived responsibility was consistently associated with level of training, program type, career path, or burnout, suggesting there may be unmeasured factors such as professional role modeling that shape these perceptions.

Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted graduate medical education, compelling training programs to abruptly transition to virtual educational formats despite minimal experience or proficiency. We surveyed residents from a national sample of internal medicine (IM) residency programs to describe their experiences with the transition to virtual morning report (MR), a highly valued core educational conference.ObjectiveAssess resident views about virtual MR content and teaching strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignAnonymous, web-based survey.ParticipantsResidents from 14 academically affiliated IM residency programs.Main measuresThe 25-item survey on virtual MR included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend and teach; how the virtual format affects the learning environment; how virtual MR compares to in-person MR with regard to participation, engagement, and overall education; and whether virtual MR should continue after in-person conferences can safely resume. The survey included a combination of Likert-style, multiple option, and open-ended questions.ResultsSix hundred fifteen residents (35%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of interns (39%), second-year (31%), and third-year (30%) residents. When comparing their overall assessment of in-person and virtual MR formats, 42% of residents preferred in-person, 18% preferred virtual, and 40% felt they were equivalent. Most respondents endorsed better peer-engagement, camaraderie, and group participation with in-person MR. Chat boxes, video participation, audience response systems, and smart boards/tablets enhanced respondents' educational experience during virtual MR. Most respondents (72%) felt that the option of virtual MR should continue when it is safe to resume in-person conferences.ConclusionsVirtual MR was a valued alternative to traditional in-person MR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Residents feel that the virtual platform offers unique educational benefits independent of and in conjunction with in-person conferences. Residents support the integration of a virtual platform into the delivery of MR in the future.

Project description:BackgroundNew virtual resources ("novel resources") have been incorporated into medical education. No recent large studies about their use and perception among internal medicine (IM) residents exist.ObjectiveCharacterize the use and perceived helpfulness of educational resources.DesignNationwide survey from December 2019 to March 2020.ParticipantsIM residents in the USA.Main measuresResidents were surveyed on their use and their perceived helpfulness of resources for both attaining general medical knowledge and for point-of-care (POC) learning. Traditional resources included board review resources, clinical experience, digital clinical resources (e.g., UpToDate), journal articles, pocket references, professional guidelines, textbooks, and residency curricula. Novel resources included Twitter, video streaming platforms (e.g., YouTube), online blogs, podcasts, and Wikipedia.Key resultsWe had 662 respondents from 55 residency programs across 26 states. On average, residents used 9 total resources (7 traditional and 2 novel). Digital clinical resources and clinical experience were used by all residents and found helpful by the highest percentage of residents (96% and 94%, respectively). Journal articles were next (used by 90%), followed by board review resources and residency curricula (both used by 85%). Their perceived helpfulness varied, from 90% for board review resources, to 66% for journal articles and 64% for residency curricula, the lowest perceived helpfulness of any traditional resource. Podcasts and video streaming platforms were used as frequently as textbooks (58-59%), but were rated as helpful more frequently (75% and 82% vs 66%, respectively).ConclusionsDigital clinical resources, video streaming platforms, and podcasts were perceived as helpful, underscoring the importance of ensuring their integration into medical education to complement clinical experience and other traditional resources which remain highly valued by residents.ImportanceOur findings can inform residency programs as they transition to virtual curricula in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.