Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • 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
    • JASN
    • 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
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Public Policy Series
You have accessRestricted Access

The Future Nephrology Workforce: Will There Be One?

Mark G. Parker, Tod Ibrahim, Rachel Shaffer, Mitchell H. Rosner and Bruce A. Molitoris
CJASN June 2011, 6 (6) 1501-1506; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.01290211
Mark G. Parker
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tod Ibrahim
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel Shaffer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mitchell H. Rosner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruce A. Molitoris
  • 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

Summary Interest in nephrology as a career is declining and has been on the decline for nearly one decade. From 2002 to 2009, all internal medicine subspecialties except geriatric medicine increased the number of available fellowship positions. However, only two subspecialties attracted fewer United States medical graduates (USMGs) in 2009 than in 2002: geriatric medicine and nephrology. This drop occurred at a time when demand for nephrologists is increasing and when the specialty is having a harder time benefiting from the substantial contribution of international medical graduates (IMGs).

Today's USMGs possess fundamentally different career and personal goals from their teachers and mentors. Medical students report receiving minimal exposure to nephrology in clinical rotations, and they perceive that the specialty is too complex, uninteresting, and lacks professional opportunity.

Meanwhile, the demographics of kidney disease in the United States, as well as recent national health policy developments, indicate a growing need for nephrologists. Efforts to improve the educational continuum in nephrology and enhance mentorship are essential to restoring interest in nephrology for USMGs, maintaining its appeal among IMGs, and developing a workforce sufficient to meet future demand for renal care.

Introduction

“You either love it or find it very, very painful. I wouldn't consider it a lifestyle specialty by any means.”

—Recent blog posting about nephrology by an internal medicine resident (1).

From 2002 to 2009, all internal medicine subspecialties except geriatric medicine increased the number of available fellowship positions (Table 1) (2–3). However, only two subspecialties attracted fewer United States medical graduates (USMGs) in 2009 than in 2002: geriatric medicine and nephrology. This drop occurred at a time when demand for nephrologists is increasing and when the specialty is having a harder time benefiting from the substantial contribution of international medical graduates (IMGs).

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

Internal medicine fellows: 2002 versus 2009

The number of USMGs in nephrology fellowships dropped from 401 to 365, even although the total number of nephrology fellows increased 28.1%, from 711 to 911 (Figure 1) (2–3). The number of female nephrology fellows rose from 229 in 2002 to 333 in 2009, but this growth represented the lowest proportional increase for any internal medicine specialty except geriatric medicine (Table 1). The total number of Hispanic nephrology fellows increased from 28 in 2002 to 59 in 2009, while the number of African-American nephrology fellows increased from 29 to 45 during the same period (Figure 1) (2–3). Despite these increases, nephrology still trails most specialties in terms of attracting Hispanics or African Americans.

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

Number of fellows in United States nephrology training programs, 2002 and 2009.

Residency training in internal medicine—the entry point to a career in adult nephrology—is unappealing to US medical students. Between 2002 and 2009, the number of USMGs in internal medicine residency positions dropped from 11,807 to 10,855, even although the total number of positions increased from 21,136 to 22,292 during this time (2–3). And among internal medicine residents, interest in nephrology is deteriorating. As illustrated in Figure 1, the percentage of all internal medicine residents—both USMGs and IMGs—applying annually has declined (4).

Today's USMGs are fundamentally different from their teachers and mentors. They value a controllable work-life balance, sacrifice salaries and career advancement for time with families (although income is a consideration due to unprecedented debt), are part of dual-career couples, define success within the context of personal life instead of professional accomplishment, characterize professionalism differently, and are less interested in developing long-term relationships with patients (5–11).

At first glance, pediatric nephrology appears to represent a potential bright spot. From 2002 to 2009, the number of pediatric nephrology fellows increased from 65 to 123, and the number of USMGs in pediatric nephrology fellowships jumped from 31 to 71 (2–3). Yet, the pediatric nephrology community has observed greater trainee attrition between the first and final year of the 3-year fellowship training period than similar pediatric specialties (12). Consequently, the median age of pediatric nephrologists has not shown a meaningful reduction during the past five years—and remains higher than that of any other pediatric specialty (13).

For today's students, adult nephrology presents a unique set of perceived negatives. In a survey of third- and fourth-year students from five medical schools, 78% of respondents conveyed that renal pathophysiology courses were too complex, lacked relevance, or simply failed to stimulate interest (14). This finding should trouble nephrology educators. Is nephrology being taught in an outdated fashion that no longer stimulates medical students?

Many students report minimal nephrology exposure during their clinical rotations. As hospitalists care for the majority of inpatients at teaching hospitals, nephrologists will have fewer opportunities to mentor students directly. Students also perceive that nephrology patients have an excessive illness burden, posing an extraordinary workload and emotional strain for their physicians. Students cite disheartening experiences in acute care with chronic dialysis patients and have few opportunities to gain perspective on other aspects of a nephrology career, including acute kidney injury (AKI), hypertension, and transplantation. Even fewer are aware of the procedural work in nephrology, a feature that often attracts students to other specialties.

Blog postings by students, residents, and fellows highlight nephrology's current image problem (Table 2) (1,15–16).

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

Recent blog comments about nephrology by physicians in training

If highly qualified IMGs are still interested in nephrology, then why is declining interest among USMGs concerning? Since 2002, nephrology fellowship training program directors have increasingly depended on IMGs to fill fellowship positions. In 2009, 497 nephrology fellows were IMGs, up from 271 in 2002 (Figure 1) (2–3). An estimated 25% of United States physicians are IMGs (17). Because 40% of nephrologists are IMGs, nephrology is more dependent on IMGs than any other specialty except geriatric medicine.

The future of IMGs in the United States is unclear. From 1996 to 2008, the number of IMGs obtaining J-1 visas declined from 11,471 to 6561 (18). Visa requirements and application processes for IMGs became more arduous after September 11, 2001 (17). As countries such as China and India create greater opportunities in medicine, more IMGs may remain in their countries of origin or return after completing graduate medical education in this country. The United States economy increasingly necessitates a two-income household, meaning that most IMGs and their spouses must secure work visas (11). Perhaps as a precursor, the number of graduates of Canadian medical schools training in United States residency and fellowship programs dropped from 418 in 2002 to 273 in 2009 (2–3).

Academic leaders are increasingly concerned about the global “brain drain” (19). The developing world faces a shortage of 4 million health care workers (20). Nephrology in the United States benefits greatly from IMGs entering the specialty, but the countries of origin of these physicians lose an important resource.

In 2002, the United States started to expand its number of medical students, but the total number of residency and fellowship positions funded by the Medicare program has been capped since passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105 to 33) (21–22). As the number of IMGs begins to taper, nephrology training programs will need more USMGs to compete for training positions—making it imperative to stimulate their interest in nephrology as soon as possible.

The demographics of kidney disease in the United States suggest an escalating need for nephrologists. Nephrology emerged as a specialty of acute renal failure (now called AKI) and fluid and electrolyte expertise, but evolved to become defined largely by growing populations with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

The recent recognition of CKD as a public health problem may be driving patients to nephrologists at earlier stages. At least 26 million Americans have some stage of CKD in 2010 (23). Incidence rates of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) among African Americans and Hispanics are nearly four times and 1.5 times greater among whites, respectively (24). The growing number of Americans, regardless of ethnicity, with diabetes and hypertension (the leading causes of CKD) will boost demand for nephrology care (25).

Paralleling the increasing prevalence of CKD, a record number of patients now has ESRD (26). In 2007, 368,544 patients were on dialysis—a 54% increase from one decade earlier. Meanwhile, mortality rates for dialysis patients have declined (27). Approximately 775,000 people are expected to be alive with ESRD in 2020, underscoring the need to train an adequate nephrology workforce in this decade.

The total number of annual kidney transplants increased from 12,451 in 1998 to 16,829 in 2009 (28). Simultaneously, the waiting list for kidneys nearly doubled to 86,167 patients. (By comparison, 16,005 patients are waiting for a liver transplant, which is the second-highest total.) Because the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education does not accredit renal transplantation fellowships, the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) and the American Society of Transplantation in 1998 took responsibility for “accrediting” these programs. The total number of renal transplant fellows dropped from 27 in 2008 to 23 in 2009 (29).

By expanding the number of United State citizens with health insurance, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PL 111 to 148) is expected to fuel demand for physicians, particularly primary care providers (30). Extending coverage to the formerly uninsured is also likely to increase the number of people diagnosed with CKD, diabetes, and hypertension. The nephrologist—a central provider for patients with CKD, ESRD, or kidney transplants—assumes a critical position in addressing the primary care needs of these patients, who tend to require frequency of contact. A care coordination role has emerged for the nephrology health care team due to the extensive co-morbidities of these patients as well as to the interdisciplinary models in dialysis and transplantation involved in their care (31).

Nephrologists are expected to become the focus of patient-centered medical homes and accountable care organizations for CKD and ESRD, analogous to the role suggested for specialists treating patients with other chronic illnesses, such as asthma or diabetes (32,33). Integral to these coordinated care delivery systems is a sufficient number of participating subspecialists to treat patients in need of specific expertise and experience—such as those with kidney disease. If there is a shortage of nephrologists and primary care physicians, who will care for patients with kidney disease?

Even before the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented, nephrologists will play a leading role in piloting models for national healthcare reform. The Medicare ESRD Program will institute bundled payments in 2011 and the first pay-for-performance system in 2012. To ensure continuation and dictate success of high-quality care in this novel payment environment, the United States needs an adequate supply of nephrologists.

To meet the projected need for nephrologists in the United States, fellowship programs should have produced an estimated 436 new nephrologists each year since 2000 (34). During the past decade, however, the American Board of Internal Medicine (which certifies internists, including nephrologists) has certified an annual average of 382 nephrologists (35). Given the growing numbers of people with CKD and ESRD as well as diabetes and hypertension—and the implications of bundled payment for Medicare ESRD and healthcare reform—the nation faces a nephrology care crisis.

Recognizing this challenge, ASN formed a Task Force on Increasing Interest in Nephrology Careers (Table 3). The task force released its final report (available at www.asn-online.org) at ASN Renal Week in November 2010. As next steps in addressing this looming crisis, the nephrology community should:

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

ASN task force on increasing interest in nephrology careers

  • Develop creative educational rotations that focus on often-overlooked areas in nephrology, such as AKI, critical care nephrology, hypertension, interventional nephrology, and transplantation.

  • Implement strategies for increasing interest among students and residents.

  • Produce an annual report on the state of the nephrology fellowship.

  • Use social media to highlight the positive aspects of nephrology careers.

To improve the educational continuum in nephrology and enhance mentorship, the nephrology community should produce more teaching tools, increase faculty development, and launch awards for nephrology educators; enhance activities for physicians-in-training during ASN Renal Week, including more grants and travel support; and make a greater commitment to recruiting women and underrepresented minorities into the specialty.

These efforts are essential to restoring interest in nephrology for USMGs, maintaining its appeal among IMGs, and developing a workforce sufficient to meet future demand for renal care. A nephrology fellow who took the ASN In-Training Examination in 2009 observed:

“I am mostly satisfied because of the vast array of opportunities to help improve the field, including contributing to clinical care, medical education, and research. Yet, nephrology is very far behind other medical fields in redefining its pathophysiology based on molecular mechanisms instead of histology, as well as its need to establish a more sophisticated foundation and perspective for clinical research, like oncology and cardiology has achieved. Related to all of this is the difficulty in communicating the complicated field of renal pathophysiology to medical students in a way that excites them and attracts them to the specialty. Established physicians and physician-scientists are of critical importance to act as mentors to any prospective renal fellow, from undergraduate through internal medicine residency” (36).

Ultimately, the future of nephrology and the health of millions of people with kidney disease will depend on the ability of each nephrologist to help students and residents love the specialty.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgments

The opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and not necessarily the opinions of their institutions or the American Society of Nephrology. The authors thank Adrienne Lea for her contributions to this paper.

Footnotes

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

  • Copyright © 2011 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    Student Doctor Network Forums. Nephrology? 2005. (Accessed September 1, 2010, at http://forums.studentdoctor.net/archive/index.php/t-199278.html)
  2. ↵
    1. Brotherton SE,
    2. Etzel SI
    : Graduate Medical Education, 2009–2010. JAMA 304: 1255–1270, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Brotherton SE,
    2. Rockney PH,
    3. Etzel SI
    : Graduate Medical Education, 2002–2003. JAMA 290: 1197–1202, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). Electronic Residency Specialty Application 2010. Washington, DC
  5. ↵
    1. Hauer KE,
    2. Fagan MJ,
    3. Kernan W,
    4. Mintz M,
    5. Durning SJ
    : Internal medicine clerkship directors' perceptions about student interest in internal medicine careers. J Gen Intern Med 23: 1101–1104, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Hauer KE,
    2. Durning SJ,
    3. Kernan WN,
    4. Fagan M,
    5. Mintz M,
    6. O'Sullivan PS,
    7. Battistone M,
    8. DeFer T,
    9. Elnicki M,
    10. Harrell H,
    11. Reddy S,
    12. Boscardin C,
    13. Schwartz M
    : Factors associated with medical students' career choices regarding internal medicine. JAMA 300: 1154–1164, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Newton DA,
    2. Grayson MS,
    3. Thompson LF
    : The variable influence of lifestyle and income on medical students' career specialty choices: data from two U.S. medical schools, 1998–2004. Acad Med 80: 809–814, 2003
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Dorsey ER,
    2. Jarjoura D,
    3. Rutecki GW
    : Influence of controllable lifestyle on recent trends in specialty choice by US medical students. JAMA 290: 1173–1178, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. McDonald FS,
    2. West CP,
    3. Popkave C,
    4. Kolars JC
    : Educational debt and reported career plans among internal medicine residents. Ann Intern Med 149: 416–420, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. West CP,
    2. Drefahl MM,
    3. Popkave C,
    4. Kolars JC
    : Internal medicine resident self-report of factors associated with career decisions. J Gen Intern Med 24: 946–949, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Warren E,
    2. Tyagi AW
    : The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers are Going Broke. New York: Basic Books, 2002
  12. ↵
    1. Weinstein R,
    2. Reidy K,
    3. Norwood V,
    4. Mahan J
    : Factors Influencing Pediatric Nephrology Trainee Entry into the Workforce. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1770–1774, 2010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    American Board of Pediatrics. Workforce Data 2009–2010. 2010. (Accessed October 13, 2010, at https://www.abp.org/abpwebsite/stats/wrkfrc/workforce09.pdf)
  14. ↵
    1. Rosner M,
    2. Parker M,
    3. Kohan D
    : Nephrology as a Career Choice: A Survey of Medical Students. J Am Soc Neph 20 (s): SA PO2867 (abstract), 2009
  15. ↵
    Student Doctor Network Forums. What is the future prospectus for a Nephrology Career? 2008. (Accessed September 1, 2010, at http://forums.student doctor.net/showthread.php?t=559458)
  16. ↵
    Student Doctor Network Forums. Nephrology. Give me an insight please. 2006. (Accessed September 1, 2010, at http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=340317)
  17. ↵
    American Medical Association IMG Governing Council. International Medical Graduates in American Medicine: Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities. Washington, DC: American Medical Association, 2010
  18. ↵
    Educational Commission on Foreign Medical Graduates. 2009 Annual Report. 2010. (Accessed September 14, 2010 at http://www.ecfmg.org/annuals/ECFMG2009.pdf
  19. ↵
    1. Mullan F
    : The metrics of the physician brain drain. N Engl J Med 353: 1810–1818, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Cohen JJ
    : The Role and Contributions of IMGs: A U.S. Perspective Acad Med 81: S17–S21, 2006
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Pub. L. no 105–33, 1997
  22. ↵
    American Association of Medical Colleges. U.S. Medical School Applicants and Students 1982–83 to 2009–2010. 2009
  23. ↵
    U S Renal Data System, USRDS 2010 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda MD, 2010
  24. ↵
    U S Renal Data System, USRDS 2010 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda MD, 2010
  25. ↵
    U S Renal Data System, USRDS 2010 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda MD, 2010
  26. ↵
    U S Renal Data System, USRDS 2009 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda MD, 2009
  27. ↵
    U S Renal Data System, USRDS 2010 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda MD, 2010
  28. ↵
    Health Resources and Services Administration Organ Procurement and Transplant Network. Annual Data Report: Transplants in the U.S. by State. 2010. (Accessed October 14, 2010 at http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/latestData/rptData.asp)
  29. ↵
    Wright, Courtney. American Society of Transplantation. Personal Correspondence. September 21, 2010
  30. ↵
    1. Inglehart J
    : Reform and the Health Care Workforce — Current Capacity, Future Demand N Engl J Med 361: e38, 2009
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. DuBose T,
    2. Behrens MT,
    3. Berns A,
    4. Klotman P,
    5. Yee Y,
    6. Campbell R
    : The Nephrology–Primary Care Interface: Providing Coordinated Care for Chronic Kidney Disease. Nephrology Self Assessment Program 9: 1–4, 2010
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Casalino LP,
    2. Rittenhouse DR,
    3. Gillies RR,
    4. Shortell SM
    : Specialist physician practices as patient-centered medical homes. N Engl J Med 362: 1555–1558, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. DuBose T,
    2. Behrens MT,
    3. Berns A,
    4. Davis C,
    5. Goldfarb S,
    6. Hostetter T,
    7. Klotman P,
    8. Linas S,
    9. Owens S,
    10. Szczech L,
    11. Himmelfarb J
    : The Patient-Centered Medical Home and Nephrology. J Am Soc Neph 20: 681–682, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. Himmelfarb J,
    2. Berns A,
    3. Szczech L,
    4. Wesson D
    : Cost, quality, and value: the changing political economy of dialysis care. J Am Soc Nephrol 18: 2021–2027, 2007
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Neilson EG,
    2. Hull AR,
    3. Wish JB,
    4. Neylan JF,
    5. Sherman D,
    6. Suki WN
    : The ad hoc committee report on estimating the future workforce and training requirements for nephrology. J Am Soc Nephrol 8 (5 suppl 9): S1–4, 1997
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Parker M,
    2. Owens S,
    3. Rosner M
    : Nephrology as a Career Choice: An ASN Fellow Membership Survey. J Am Soc Neph. 20 (s): SA PO2868, 2009
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 6 (6)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 6, Issue 6
1 Jun 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • 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 CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Future Nephrology Workforce: Will There Be One?
(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
The Future Nephrology Workforce: Will There Be One?
Mark G. Parker, Tod Ibrahim, Rachel Shaffer, Mitchell H. Rosner, Bruce A. Molitoris
CJASN Jun 2011, 6 (6) 1501-1506; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01290211

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
The Future Nephrology Workforce: Will There Be One?
Mark G. Parker, Tod Ibrahim, Rachel Shaffer, Mitchell H. Rosner, Bruce A. Molitoris
CJASN Jun 2011, 6 (6) 1501-1506; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01290211
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
    • Introduction
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • New Organ Allocation System for Combined Liver-Kidney Transplants and the Availability of Kidneys for Transplant to Patients with Stage 4–5 CKD
  • Consolidation in the Dialysis Industry, Patient Choice, and Local Market Competition
  • New Opportunities for Funding Dialysis-Dependent Undocumented Individuals
Show more Public Policy Series

Cited By...

  • The Influence of Medical School Debt on Career Choices in Nephrology
  • Workforce capacity for the care of patients with kidney failure across world countries and regions
  • Reimagining Institutional Research Training: Coordinating a Highly Interactive Community of Young Investigators Prepared to Excel
  • A Night Float System in Nephrology Fellowship: A Mixed Methods Evaluation
  • The Role of Telemedicine in Providing Nephrology Care in Rural Hospitals
  • Burnout and Emotional Well-Being among Nephrology Fellows: A National Online Survey
  • Teaching Pediatric Peritoneal Dialysis Globally through Virtual Simulation
  • Burnout in Nephrology: Implications on Recruitment and the Workforce
  • Transforming Nephrology
  • Training the Next Generation's Nephrology Workforce
  • The Kidney Disease Screening and Awareness Program (KDSAP): A Novel Translatable Model for Increasing Interest in Nephrology Careers
  • ASN Presidential Address 2013: Innovation and Individualization--The Path Forward for Nephrology
  • Five Policies to Promote Palliative Care for Patients with ESRD
  • Nephrologist Caseload and Hemodialysis Patient Survival in an Urban Cohort
  • Lessons Learned from the ASN Renal Educator Listserv and Survey
  • The Primary Care Perspective on Routine Urine Dipstick Screening to Identify Patients with Albuminuria
  • Factors in Career Choice among US Nephrologists
  • Usability of a CKD Educational Website Targeted to Patients and Their Family Members
  • Career Choice Selection and Satisfaction among US Adult Nephrology Fellows
  • Attracting More Residents into Nephrology
  • Training the Next Generation of Nephrologists
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Articles

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

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN 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
  • Wolters Kluwer Partnership

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire