Cargando…

Should nephrologists take a larger role in interventional nephrology, and should central line insertion remain a requirement of nephrology residency training? A debate

The Canadian Society of Nephrology must soon provide input concerning the future of procedural training in nephrology. While at one time, the ability to insert a central venous catheter (CVC) was an essential skill required by all nephrologists, in 2014, nephrology training and practice has changed...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Mendelssohn, David C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411820/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25922687
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40697-015-0045-x
_version_ 1782368549733400576
author Mendelssohn, David C
author_facet Mendelssohn, David C
author_sort Mendelssohn, David C
collection PubMed
description The Canadian Society of Nephrology must soon provide input concerning the future of procedural training in nephrology. While at one time, the ability to insert a central venous catheter (CVC) was an essential skill required by all nephrologists, in 2014, nephrology training and practice has changed in fundamental ways such that it would be both unreasonable, and impractical, to maintain this requirement. Indeed, survey evidence suggests that many current trainees are not achieving this competency. Amongst the reasons that this requirement should be withdrawn include: 1) Not all trainees have the procedural skills to safely learn to insert CVC’s. 2) Most nephrologists in training and in practice are intellectually oriented, not procedurally oriented and are not seeking to perform lots of procedures. 3) In most practice settings, interventional radiologists and intensive care doctors perform dialysis line insertions using real time ultrasound guidance frequently, and offer timely, safer, and better service to patients. 4) Most trainees will not enter practice settings where CVC insertion ability is required. 5) Otherwise excellent future trainees may be denied a nephrology certificate of special competence only because they are unable to insert a CVC by the end of their fellowship. 6) Academic nephrology training programs that cannot provide adequate CVC insertion experience to fellows may lose their status as training centres. As a pragmatic way forward, Canadian nephrology training programs must encourage and offer only those nephrology trainees who have the ability and interest in procedural nephrology, a pathway through which they may be provided superb advanced training to become an expert. There is no longer a compelling reason to mandate this for all trainees.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4411820
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44118202015-04-29 Should nephrologists take a larger role in interventional nephrology, and should central line insertion remain a requirement of nephrology residency training? A debate Mendelssohn, David C Can J Kidney Health Dis Review The Canadian Society of Nephrology must soon provide input concerning the future of procedural training in nephrology. While at one time, the ability to insert a central venous catheter (CVC) was an essential skill required by all nephrologists, in 2014, nephrology training and practice has changed in fundamental ways such that it would be both unreasonable, and impractical, to maintain this requirement. Indeed, survey evidence suggests that many current trainees are not achieving this competency. Amongst the reasons that this requirement should be withdrawn include: 1) Not all trainees have the procedural skills to safely learn to insert CVC’s. 2) Most nephrologists in training and in practice are intellectually oriented, not procedurally oriented and are not seeking to perform lots of procedures. 3) In most practice settings, interventional radiologists and intensive care doctors perform dialysis line insertions using real time ultrasound guidance frequently, and offer timely, safer, and better service to patients. 4) Most trainees will not enter practice settings where CVC insertion ability is required. 5) Otherwise excellent future trainees may be denied a nephrology certificate of special competence only because they are unable to insert a CVC by the end of their fellowship. 6) Academic nephrology training programs that cannot provide adequate CVC insertion experience to fellows may lose their status as training centres. As a pragmatic way forward, Canadian nephrology training programs must encourage and offer only those nephrology trainees who have the ability and interest in procedural nephrology, a pathway through which they may be provided superb advanced training to become an expert. There is no longer a compelling reason to mandate this for all trainees. BioMed Central 2015-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4411820/ /pubmed/25922687 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40697-015-0045-x Text en © Mendelssohn; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Mendelssohn, David C
Should nephrologists take a larger role in interventional nephrology, and should central line insertion remain a requirement of nephrology residency training? A debate
title Should nephrologists take a larger role in interventional nephrology, and should central line insertion remain a requirement of nephrology residency training? A debate
title_full Should nephrologists take a larger role in interventional nephrology, and should central line insertion remain a requirement of nephrology residency training? A debate
title_fullStr Should nephrologists take a larger role in interventional nephrology, and should central line insertion remain a requirement of nephrology residency training? A debate
title_full_unstemmed Should nephrologists take a larger role in interventional nephrology, and should central line insertion remain a requirement of nephrology residency training? A debate
title_short Should nephrologists take a larger role in interventional nephrology, and should central line insertion remain a requirement of nephrology residency training? A debate
title_sort should nephrologists take a larger role in interventional nephrology, and should central line insertion remain a requirement of nephrology residency training? a debate
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411820/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25922687
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40697-015-0045-x
work_keys_str_mv AT mendelssohndavidc shouldnephrologiststakealargerroleininterventionalnephrologyandshouldcentrallineinsertionremainarequirementofnephrologyresidencytrainingadebate