Nephrology Program Director Protected Time for Program Administration in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) required that program directors receive 10-20 h/wk of protected time for program administration (including didactic teaching). In July 2022, this was reduced for all internal medicine subspecialties on the basis of program size, with 8 h/wk required for programs with fewer than seven fellows, the majority of nephrology programs. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We surveyed all 151 US adult nephrology program directors (ACGME Public List of Programs 2021-2022) to determine how much protected time they receive, how much they think is necessary, and the division of their professional time. The anonymous 20-question online survey was administered from March 31 to April 30, 2022. The analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: Response rate was 66% (99 of 151). Geographic distribution and approved fellow positions were similar to programs nationally; 59% had fewer than seven approved positions. Median protected time was 10 h/wk (interquartile range, 5-10), with 8 h/wk (interquartile range, 5-10) for those with fewer than seven positions. Program directors estimated needing 12 h/wk (interquartile range, 10-16) to effectively administer programs, including those with fewer than seven positions, a median 5 h/wk (interquartile range, 0-7) more than received. Of program directors reporting <10 h/wk for program administration, 62% provided >20 hours of direct patient care. Thirty-nine percent had no protected time for core faculty. Fellow recruitment (68%) was the most time-consuming task, and didactic teaching (80%) was the most professionally rewarding. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of the nephrology programs surveyed were not in compliance with the ACGME-stipulated 10-h/wk minimum protected time for the 2021-2022 training year. Program directors estimated a median of 12 h/wk are needed to effectively manage programs.

Assessing Nephrology Fellows' Skills in Communicating About Kidney Replacement Therapy and Kidney Biopsy: A Multicenter Clinical Simulation Study on Breaking Bad News.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Interpersonal communication skills and professionalism competencies are difficult to assess among nephrology trainees. We developed a formative "Breaking Bad News" simulation and implemented a study in which nephrology fellows were assessed with regard to their skills in providing counseling to simulated patients confronting the need for kidney replacement therapy (KRT) or kidney biopsy. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of communication competency in the setting of preparing for KRT for kidney failure, for KRT for acute kidney injury (AKI), or for kidney biopsy. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 58 first- and second-year nephrology fellows assessed during 71 clinical evaluation sessions at 8 training programs who participated in an objective structured clinical examination of simulated patients in 2017 and 2018. PREDICTORS: Fellowship training year and clinical scenario. OUTCOME: Primary outcome was the composite score for the "overall rating" item on the Essential Elements of Communication-Global Rating Scale 2005 (EEC-GRS), as assessed by simulated patients. Secondary outcomes were the score for EEC-GRS "overall rating" item for each scenario, score < 3 for any EEC-GRS item, Mini-Clinical Examination Exercise (Mini-CEX) score < 3 on at least 1 item (as assessed by faculty), and faculty and fellow satisfaction with simulation exercise (via a survey they completed). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Nonparametric tests of hypothesis comparing performance by fellowship year (primary goal) and scenario. RESULTS: Composite scores for EEC-GRS overall rating item were not significantly different between fellowship years (P = 0.2). Only 4 of 71 fellow evaluations had an unsatisfactory score for the EEC-GRS overall rating item on any scenario. On Mini-CEX, 17% scored < 3 on at least 1 item in the kidney failure scenario; 37% and 53% scored < 3 on at least 1 item in the AKI and kidney biopsy scenarios, respectively. In the survey, 96% of fellows and 100% of faculty reported the learning objectives were met and rated the experience good or better in 3 survey rating questions. LIMITATIONS: Relatively brief time for interactions; limited familiarity with and training of simulated patients in use of EEC-GRS. CONCLUSIONS: The fellows scored highly on the EEC-GRS regardless of their training year, suggesting interpersonal communication competency is achieved early in training. The fellows did better with the kidney failure scenario than with the AKI and kidney biopsy scenarios. Structured simulated clinical examinations may be useful to inform curricular choices and may be a valuable assessment tool for communication and professionalism.