Richard Hae1, Daniel Samaha1,2, Pierre-Antoine Brown1,2, Rory McQuillan3,4, Swapnil Hiremath1,2, Edward G Clark1,2. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital Riverside Campus, ON, Canada. 3. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. University of Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists as to whether the insertion of temporary hemodialysis catheters (THDCs) should remain a mandatory requirement of nephrology fellowship training in Canada. A survey conducted by our group in 2012 showed that many nephrology trainees reported inadequate training to achieve procedural competence. OBJECTIVE: To determine the current practices and training of the insertion of THDCs in nephrology fellowship programs in Canada and how this has evolved since 2012. DESIGN: A survey study was designed comprising the following sections: demographics, details regarding the number and types of THDCs inserted within the past 6 months of fellowship training, adherence to sterile techniques, the use of ultrasound guidance during THDC insertion, training for THDC insertion received before and during nephrology fellowship, and self-perceived adequacy of training and competence in THDC insertion. SETTING: The survey was distributed by e-mail in May 2018 either directly or through Canadian nephrology training programs. PARTICIPANTS: Current trainees of Canadian adult nephrology training programs. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the summarized data. The means and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were used to summarize the number of THDC insertions performed, and the categorical data, including data on training and self-perceived competency, were reported using frequencies and percentages. A chi-squared test was used to evaluate the relationship between those who received simulation-based training and self-perceived confidence in either internal jugular or femoral catheter insertion. METHODS: An online survey, available in both English and French, was distributed to all adult nephrology trainees in Canada in May 2018 either directly or through their respective programs. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 46 of 136 nephrology trainees across Canada (34%). Of those who responded, the median (IQR) number of combined femoral and/or internal jugular THDCs inserted in the past 6 months of fellowship training was 3 (1-6). Eight respondents (17%) indicated that they had not inserted a THDC in the past 6 months. However, only 7 of 42 respondents (17%) indicated that they did not feel competent or adequately trained to perform either femoral or internal jugular THDC insertion. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study include participation of trainees at different stages of their training. Many trainees indicated that it was not a requirement to keep a formal log of their procedures performed and likely had recall bias when reporting their procedure details. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrology fellows in Canada are performing fewer THDC insertions compared to 2012 but report higher levels of self-perceived competence and better training. This may be as a result of significantly more simulation-based training. Our data suggest that training to procedural mastery using simulation-based techniques may be a path to ensuring adequate training for THDC insertion despite fewer procedures being performed during training.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists as to whether the insertion of temporary hemodialysis catheters (THDCs) should remain a mandatory requirement of nephrology fellowship training in Canada. A survey conducted by our group in 2012 showed that many nephrology trainees reported inadequate training to achieve procedural competence. OBJECTIVE: To determine the current practices and training of the insertion of THDCs in nephrology fellowship programs in Canada and how this has evolved since 2012. DESIGN: A survey study was designed comprising the following sections: demographics, details regarding the number and types of THDCs inserted within the past 6 months of fellowship training, adherence to sterile techniques, the use of ultrasound guidance during THDC insertion, training for THDC insertion received before and during nephrology fellowship, and self-perceived adequacy of training and competence in THDC insertion. SETTING: The survey was distributed by e-mail in May 2018 either directly or through Canadian nephrology training programs. PARTICIPANTS: Current trainees of Canadian adult nephrology training programs. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the summarized data. The means and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were used to summarize the number of THDC insertions performed, and the categorical data, including data on training and self-perceived competency, were reported using frequencies and percentages. A chi-squared test was used to evaluate the relationship between those who received simulation-based training and self-perceived confidence in either internal jugular or femoral catheter insertion. METHODS: An online survey, available in both English and French, was distributed to all adult nephrology trainees in Canada in May 2018 either directly or through their respective programs. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 46 of 136 nephrology trainees across Canada (34%). Of those who responded, the median (IQR) number of combined femoral and/or internal jugular THDCs inserted in the past 6 months of fellowship training was 3 (1-6). Eight respondents (17%) indicated that they had not inserted a THDC in the past 6 months. However, only 7 of 42 respondents (17%) indicated that they did not feel competent or adequately trained to perform either femoral or internal jugular THDC insertion. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study include participation of trainees at different stages of their training. Many trainees indicated that it was not a requirement to keep a formal log of their procedures performed and likely had recall bias when reporting their procedure details. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrology fellows in Canada are performing fewer THDC insertions compared to 2012 but report higher levels of self-perceived competence and better training. This may be as a result of significantly more simulation-based training. Our data suggest that training to procedural mastery using simulation-based techniques may be a path to ensuring adequate training for THDC insertion despite fewer procedures being performed during training.
Temporary hemodialysis catheter (THDC) insertion remains a core competency of
nephrology training programs in Canada. In a 2012 survey, many nephrology trainees
in Canada reported inadequate training to achieve competence in THDC insertion.
What this adds
Although nephrology trainees are performing fewer THDC insertions than before, they
are reporting better training and self-perceived competence than in 2012.
Simulation-based training may be a useful tool to help trainees achieve competence
with fewer procedures being performed.
Background
Controversy exists as to whether the insertion of temporary hemodialysis catheters
(THDCs) should remain a mandatory requirement of nephrology fellowship training in
Canada.[1-4] Ensuring adequate training for
anyone performing this procedure is an important patient-safety issue, as incorrect
technique is likely to increase the risk of complications which can, in some cases,
be fatal.[5] Nonetheless, a survey conducted by our group in 2012 indicated that many
nephrology trainees in Canada reported inadequate training to achieve competence.[6] We sought to determine if training practices and self-perceived competence
for THDC insertion amongst nephrology trainees in Canada had changed in light of the
debate surrounding this issue in recent years.
Objectives
To determine the state of fellowship training for, as well as current practices and
self-perceived competence of nephrology trainees in, performing THDC insertion.
Design
We conducted a Web-based survey study composed of 6 sections: demographics, details
regarding the number and types of THDCs inserted within the past 6 months of
fellowship training, adherence to sterility technique, the use of ultrasound
guidance during THDC insertion, training of THDC insertion received before and
during nephrology fellowship, and self-perceived adequacy of training and competence
in THDC insertion. The survey was similar to one that was conducted by our group in 2012[6] to allow for an assessment of changes in nephrology training and practices
across Canada over this period. The complete survey (English version) is reported in
Supplementary Item S1. The survey was made available to potential
respondents in both English and French.
Setting and Participants
The survey was distributed by e-mail to adult nephrology trainees across Canada in
May 2018, either directly or through their respective training programs. The target
population was all adult nephrology trainees, including Royal College fellows and
clinical nephrology fellows who were pursuing additional training. Pediatric
nephrology trainees were excluded from the survey.
Measurements
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data obtained from the survey. The
continuous variables, including the number of THDCs performed, were summarized using
the mean and interquartile ranges (IQRs). The categorical variables were summarized
using frequencies and percentages. A chi-squared test was used to evaluate the
relationship between those who received simulation-based training and self-perceived
confidence in either internal jugular (IJ) or femoral catheter insertion.
Methods
After obtaining approval from the Ottawa Health Sciences Network Research Ethics
Board (Protocol 20180331-01H), an e-mail invitation that included a link to our
Web-based survey was distributed to all adult nephrology trainees across Canada in
May 2018, by contacting the program administrators of each nephrology training
program. The survey was distributed toward the end of the academic year (beginning
July 1) to ensure that trainees were more likely to have undergone at least 10
months of fellowship training. Follow-up e-mails were also sent to each trainee or
training program after 4 to 8 weeks as reminders, to increase the participation of
the survey.
Results
Completed surveys were received from 46 of 136 nephrology trainees across Canada
(34%). The denominator of 136 trainees was determined using the number of trainees
reported in the Canadian Post-M.D. Education Registry 2017 to 2018 Annual Census.[7] Responses were obtained from at least 1 trainee from 13 of the 15 Canadian
subspecialty training programs that had at least 1 active nephrology trainee. One
nephrology training program was noted to have no active nephrology trainees at the
time the survey was distributed. Of those who responded, the median (IQR) number of
THDCs, including both IJ and femoral catheters, inserted in the past 6 months was 3
(1-6). This included 8 respondents (17%) who indicated that they had not inserted a
THDC in the prior 6 months of training. Of the 8 respondents who indicated that they
had not inserted a THDC in the past 6 months, it was noted that at least 1 other
trainee from their respective programs reported inserting one or more catheters over
this time period. Table
1 reports the types of training for THDC insertion that the nephrology
fellows reported as having received during their fellowship, their self-perceived
competence for performing THDC insertions, and their adherence to the use of
ultrasound and infection-control procedures. Supplementary Item S1 contains the complete survey and combined
responses from the English and French versions.
Table 1.
Selected Survey Results.
Topic
Responses: No. (%)
Well trained and competent
Some training but not enough to feel
competent
Little or no training
Self-perceived level of training and competence for
THDC insertion(n = 42)
Internal Jugular
33 (79%)
6 (14%)
3 (7%)
Femoral
25 (60%)
10 (24%)
7 (17%)
No training
Lecture-based/didactic teaching
Hands-on/bedside teaching
Simulation-based training
Types of training for THDC insertion received during
fellowship(n = 43)
12 (28%)
11 (26%)
21 (51%)
26 (61%)
Types of training for THDC insertion received before
fellowship(n = 43)
0 (0%)
21 (51%)
33 (77%)
31 (72%)
Always
Most of the time
Occasionally
Never
Routine use of ultrasound(n = 41)
Internal jugular(n = 31)[a]
29 (94%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
1 (3%)
Femoral(n = 30)[b]
20 (67%)
2 (7%)
5 (17%)
3 (10%)
Basic infection-control adherence[c]
(n = 39)
38 (97.4%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Use of head-to-toe sterile drape(n =
39)
24 (62%)
9 (23%)
0 (0%)
6 (15%)
Note. THDC = temporary hemodialysis catheter; N/A = not
applicable.
Excludes 11 (27%) respondents who reported no insertions at that site
within last 6 months.
Excludes 10 (24%) respondents who reported no insertions at that site
within last 6 months.
Sterile gloves, gown, and face mask (use of all).
Selected Survey Results.Note. THDC = temporary hemodialysis catheter; N/A = not
applicable.Excludes 11 (27%) respondents who reported no insertions at that site
within last 6 months.Excludes 10 (24%) respondents who reported no insertions at that site
within last 6 months.Sterile gloves, gown, and face mask (use of all).The receipt of simulation-based training during fellowship training was not
significantly associated with self-perceived confidence in performing either IJ or
femoral THDC insertion (χ2 = 1.29, P = 0.26).
Discussion
Training and self-perceived competence for THDC insertion amongst nephrology trainees
in Canada appears to be better than it was in 2012. Only 7 of 42 (17%) nephrology
fellows reported that they were not competent to perform either femoral or IJ THDC
insertions. Although it can be argued that nobody should feel this way for a
procedure that is a requirement of training, in our nearly identical 2012 survey,
33% reported feeling the same way.[6] It is notable that, at the same time, the median number of THDC insertions
reported in the past 6 months was only 3, as compared to 5 in 2012.[4] Thus, despite trainees reporting performing the procedure less frequently,
they are now reporting being better trained and more likely to feel competent to
perform the procedure, particularly at the IJ site. We suggest that this may be the
result of a much higher proportion of trainees having received simulation-based
training. Sixty percent of respondents reported having received simulation-based
training during their nephrology fellowship training. This is in contrast to only
11% of respondents who reported having received simulation-based training in the
2012 survey.[6] Although the correlation between simulation training and self-perceived
competence was not significant statistically, the overall impact of simulation
training is difficult to assess in this small sample and also may be underestimated
given that 38 of 42 (90%) respondents indicated that they received some form of
simulation-based training either before fellowship or during their fellowship
training. Trainees may be developing better central line insertion skills due to
their earlier exposure to procedural simulation training. Studies have shown that
simulation-based training can significantly improve residents’ skills in THDC
insertion, with fewer needle passes required and increased self-confidence.[8] More broadly, simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) training programs for
central venous catheter insertion have been shown to improve patient outcomes versus
traditional training through a significant reduction in central line associated
bloodstream infections.[9] Simulation-based mastery learning training encompasses basic ultrasound
training as well as infection-control measures at the time of THDC insertion. We
note that ultrasound use and adherence to infection-control procedures appears to
have improved from 2012.[6] Although the causes for this are likely multifactorial, the increased use of
simulation-based training may have played a role. We note that 7 respondents (17%)
reported having received SBML training through a course that has been offered at the
Canadian Society of Nephrology Annual Meeting on 3 occasions since 2014. This
program was previously reported to provide an avenue to effective training to a
mastery level outside of that offered at a program level.[10] Such programs provide an opportunity for SBML training for trainees from
smaller programs that may not have the necessary infrastructure or expertise to
provide it.
Limitations
There are a number of limitations to our study. First, trainees who responded to the
survey were at different stages of their nephrology training. Although we
deliberately sent out our survey toward the end of the resident calendar to target
those who would have been in a subspecialty training program for a minimum of 10
months, the individual stages of training amongst respondents differ. In addition,
since many trainees indicated that their programs did not require them to keep a log
of the number of procedures performed, it is likely that in most cases, respondents’
estimates are prone to recall bias. Given the nature of the survey study, the
results of self-reported competence in THDC insertion may also not accurately
represent the true level of competence of each individual trainee.
Conclusion
Our survey suggests that nephrology fellows in Canada are performing fewer THDC
insertions while reporting higher levels of self-perceived competence and better
training. They are also reporting better adherence to the routine use of ultrasound
and basic sterility measures than in 2012. At the same time, many more trainees are
receiving simulation-based training. More broadly, our results suggest that
simulation-based training may be allowing for adequate training for THDC insertion
despite relatively few procedures being performed during training.Click here for additional data file.Supplemental material, Item_S1-CJKHD_1 for A Survey of Training for Temporary
Hemodialysis Catheter Insertion During Nephrology Fellowship in Canada: An
Update by Richard Hae, Daniel Samaha, Pierre-Antoine Brown, Rory McQuillan,
Swapnil Hiremath and Edward G. Clark in Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and
Disease
Authors: Edward G Clark; Michael E Schachter; Andrea Palumbo; Greg Knoll; Cedric Edwards Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Edward G Clark; James J Paparello; Diane B Wayne; Cedric Edwards; Stephanie Hoar; Rory McQuillan; Michael E Schachter; Jeffrey H Barsuk Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2014-10-14