4.6 Article

The US Pediatric Nephrology Workforce: A Report Commissioned by the American Academy of Pediatrics

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 33-39

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.03.022

关键词

Pediatric nephrology; workforce; physician shortage; staffing adequacy; health services needs; health care worker maldistribution; work-life balance; workload; physician motivation; medical career; fellowship training; fellows; American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

资金

  1. AAP Division of Workforce and Medical Education Policy and Section on Nephrology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The US pediatric nephrology workforce is poorly characterized. This report describes clinical and nonclinical activities, motivations and disincentives to a career in pediatric nephrology, future workforce needs, trainee recruitment, and possible explanations for personnel shortages. An e-mail survey was sent in 2013 to all identified US-trained or -practicing pediatric nephrologists. Of 504 respondents, 51% are men, 66% are US graduates, and 73% work in an academic setting. About 20% of trained pediatric nephrologists no longer practice pediatric nephrology. Among the 384 respondents practicing pediatric nephrology full or part-time in the United States, the mean work week was 56.1 +/- 14.3 hours, with time divided between patient care (59%), administration (13%), teaching (10%), clinical research (9%), basic research (6%), and other medical activities (3%). Most (>85%) care for dialysis and transplantation patients. The median number of weeks annually on call is 16, and 29% work with one or no partner. One-third of US pediatric nephrologists (n = 126) plan to reduce or stop clinical nephrology practice in the next 5 years, and 53% plan to fully or partially retire. Almost half the division chiefs (47%) report inadequate physician staffing. Ongoing efforts to monitor and address pediatric nephrology workforce issues are needed. (C) 2015 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据