Table 2.

Program training practices

Kidney Biopsy Training (n=69)100%>75%–99%>50%–75%>25%–50%>0%–25%% Programs
Q17. Faculty oversight (native biopsy), %
 Nephrology5190613
 Interventional nephrology11131
 Interventional radiology19131110
 Other2a0001
Q18. Kidney visualization (n=69)
 Real-time ultrasound88
 Ultrasound localization15
 CT localization30
 Fluoroscopy3
 Physical landmarks0
Q22. Training other than clinical biopsy performance (n=69)
 Biopsy simulation under real-time ultrasound at the training program36
 Attending a biopsy simulation course at another site7
 Internal lecture series at which tissue interpretation is systematically reviewed51
 Attending an external kidney biopsy tissue interpretation training course19
 Interventional nephrology rotation supervised by IR or interventional nephrology15
 Otherb19
 No other specific training15
Nephropathology training (n=69)
 Q19. Nephropathologist at institution88
 Q20. Review of tissue
  Review of printed report only7
  Review most with faculty only9
  Review with pathology only if fellow performed the biopsy22
  Review most biopsies performed by any fellow with pathology23
  Review most biopsies done at institution with pathology38
  Formal biopsy conference where some/all biopsies are reviewed with pathology81
  Otherc19
Q21. Biopsy conference frequency (n=69)
 Weekly15
 Twice monthly15
 Monthly52
 Quarterly17
 No formal conference0
  • Q, question number; US, ultrasound; CT, computed tomography; IR, interventional radiology.

  • a One program reported all biopsies overseen by a urologist, and another by a ultrasound radiologist.

  • b One program gave joint faculty appointments to IR, who is helping to develop a simulation lab, and will oversee fellows in the future.

  • c Two programs offered a rotation with the nephropathologist. One program combined the tissue review conference with treatment plan development. Two programs access tissue images digitally, and interact with the nephropathologist on-line.