Residents' satisfaction and suggestions to improve nephrology residency in Italy, and comparison with the organization in other European countries

Adolfo Marco Perrotta; Silverio Rotondi; Maria Amicone; Irene Cirella; Rossella Siligato; Simone Fontana; Carmen Sivo; Anna Rita Vestri; Giovanni Gambaro; Giorgina Barbara Piccoli; Sandro Mazzaferro

doi:10.1007/s40620-024-01901-2

Residents' satisfaction and suggestions to improve nephrology residency in Italy, and comparison with the organization in other European countries

J Nephrol. 2024 Mar 16. doi: 10.1007/s40620-024-01901-2. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Translational and Precision Medicine, Nephrology Unit, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185, Rome, Italy.
² Department of Public Health, "Federico II" University of Naples, 80131, Naples, Italy.
³ Department of Medicine, Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit, University of Padova, 35128, Padova, Italy.
⁴ Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Unit of Nephrology and Dialysis, University of Messina, 98125, Messina, Italy.
⁵ Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, San Raffaele Hospital, Vita Salute University, 20158, Milan, Italy.
⁶ Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Section of Nephrology, University of Bari, 70121, Bari, Italy.
⁷ Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161, Rome, Italy.
⁸ Department of Medicine, University of Verona, 37100, Verona, Italy.
⁹ Nephrologie, Centre Hospitalier Le Mans, Le Mans, France.
¹⁰ Department of Translational and Precision Medicine, Nephrology Unit, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185, Rome, Italy. sandro.mazzaferro@uniroma1.it.

PMID: 38492168
DOI: 10.1007/s40620-024-01901-2

Abstract

Background: In Italy, nephrology residency is available in twenty-one nephrology schools, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. The present study is aimed at exploring the residents' satisfaction with their training programs.

Methods: Between April 20th and May 19th, 2021, a questionnaire on residency satisfaction consisting of 49 items was sent to 586 residents and 175 recently certified specialists (qualified to practice as nephrologists in 2019 and 2020), with a response rate of 81% and 51%, respectively. The teaching organization was contextualized with a survey involving 13 European nephrology schools.

Results: Most residency fellowship programs received a good rating with regard to "satisfaction", in particular for the following items: number of hospitalizations followed-up, chronic hemodialysis training, follow-up of transplanted patients, diagnosis and treatment of glomerulonephritis. The teachings that were identified as being of lower quality or insufficient intensity included vascular access management, ultrasound diagnostics and renal nutrition. The need for improvement in formal teaching programs was underlined. Young nephrologists were rather satisfied with their salary and with the quality of the work they were doing, but only few were interested in an academic career since it was generally held that it is "too difficult" to obtain a university position. Many young nephrologists who filled in the questionnaire felt that lack of experience in peritoneal dialysis and vascular access management was a barrier to finding an ideal job. Compared to other European training programs, the Italian program differs with regard to longer exposure to nephrology (as compared to internal medicine), and greater flexibility for internships in different settings, including abroad.

Conclusions: This first nationwide survey on the satisfaction of residents in nephrology indicates that, despite rather good overall satisfaction, there is room for improvement to make nephrology a more appealing choice and to fulfill the needs of a growing number of renal disease patients.

Keywords: Medical school; Nephrology; Questionnaire; Resident; Satisfaction.