暂无摘要。

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) required that program directors receive 10-20 h/wk of protected time for program administration (including didactic teaching). In July 2022, this was reduced for all internal medicine subspecialties on the basis of program size, with 8 h/wk required for programs with fewer than seven fellows, the majority of nephrology programs.
We surveyed all 151 US adult nephrology program directors (ACGME Public List of Programs 2021-2022) to determine how much protected time they receive, how much they think is necessary, and the division of their professional time. The anonymous 20-question online survey was administered from March 31 to April 30, 2022. The analysis was descriptive.
Response rate was 66% (99 of 151). Geographic distribution and approved fellow positions were similar to programs nationally; 59% had fewer than seven approved positions. Median protected time was 10 h/wk (interquartile range, 5-10), with 8 h/wk (interquartile range, 5-10) for those with fewer than seven positions. Program directors estimated needing 12 h/wk (interquartile range, 10-16) to effectively administer programs, including those with fewer than seven positions, a median 5 h/wk (interquartile range, 0-7) more than received. Of program directors reporting <10 h/wk for program administration, 62% provided >20 hours of direct patient care. Thirty-nine percent had no protected time for core faculty. Fellow recruitment (68%) was the most time-consuming task, and didactic teaching (80%) was the most professionally rewarding.
Approximately half of the nephrology programs surveyed were not in compliance with the ACGME-stipulated 10-h/wk minimum protected time for the 2021-2022 training year. Program directors estimated a median of 12 h/wk are needed to effectively manage programs.

BACKGROUND: Providing funding for clinicians to have protected time to undertake research can address a commonly cited barrier to research - lack of time. However, limited research has evaluated the impact or mechanisms of such funding initiatives. In the current economic environment, it is important that funding is used efficiently and judiciously and that mechanisms and contexts that may assist with maximising outcomes of funding initiatives are identified. This study aimed to describe the medium-term outcomes of a funding initiative to promote allied health research activity and to identify the key mechanisms and contexts that facilitated these outcomes.
METHODS: We used a qualitative research design informed by a realist evaluation, to conduct 10 semi-structured interviews with allied health professionals who had participated in a funding initiative 1-3 years ago. Questions explored outcomes, mechanisms and contexts of the funding initiative. Data was thematically coded into context-mechanism-outcome configurations.
RESULTS: Medium term outcomes included increased individual research opportunities, influence on team research culture and impact on clinical work/practice. Other outcomes included increased clinician confidence, knowledge and skill, and research outputs. However, some participants still had difficulties progressing research. Four context-mechanism-outcome configurations were identified to explain which contexts and mechanisms produced these outcomes. Examples of contexts included perception of managerial support, undertaking a research-based higher degree and joint applications, while mechanisms included accessing infrastructure and resources as well as individual researcher factors like motivation.
CONCLUSIONS: Providing funding to allied health professionals to undertake and complete research can lead to important outcomes, including increased research opportunities, capacity and culture, increased research outputs, and changes to clinical practice. Outcomes are influenced by unique contexts and mechanisms and these should be considered in future implementation of similar funding initiatives.

This paper outlines why experienced supervisors at a London healthcare provider received skills training so they could offer safeguarding supervision to front-line colleagues with case management responsibilities for vulnerable children and young people. It examines how supervisors use the main functions of supervision and a cycle of reflection in clinical practice with supervisees. As well as the professional issues encountered by supervisors in relation to the benefits, the challenges of providing supervision and the action required to make safeguarding supervision a part of the organisational culture are also explored.