Healthcare and Nephrology Supervising: A Mini Review

Michael Goodwin^*
*Correspondence: Michael Goodwin, Department of Nephrology, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, Email:

Keywords

Nephrology • Medicine • Mentors

Introduction

Success in every discipline, including medicine, depends on mentorship. Given that it has relied on an apprentice-based educational system for hundreds of years, medicine is especially well-suited to mentoring. Since there has been a sharp decline in interest, which will probably lead to a major lack of nephrologists, mentoring is essential to the subject of nephrology.

Review Literature

The qualities of effective mentoring

A true mentor is one who actively engages with, assesses, and improves his or her own efficacy as a mentor while attempting to ensure open and honest communication with the mentee. A resource, not a mentor, is someone with extensive connections and experience that is infrequently accessible and does not promote open and regular lines of communication.

Many of the characteristics of good mentors and good doctors are similar, including sincerity, reliability, moral character, and availability. Additionally, he or she must evaluate and accept the mentee's behavior, continually hold the mentee in high regard despite clear shortcomings, and offer constructive criticism [1,2]. A genuine mentor-mentee relationship is lifetime and has the potential to develop over time into something more equal and mutually beneficial. In particular, mentors can learn a lot about technology and social media from mentees.

Types of mentors

The classic mentor-mentee relationship comes to mind when you think of mentoring, but the reality is usually more nuanced [3]. The conventional mentor is an established, official, ongoing, and reciprocal connection between a seasoned professional and a beginner that serves to advance both parties' professional development. The dyadic model of mentoring, which is this type, is the most typical. When there is mutual respect, common beliefs, and efficient communication, this partnership is most successful [4].

The sponsor type of mentor is dedicated to the successful advancement of the mentee's career by providing chances for visibility and advancement, such as giving presentations at national and international conferences, taking part in study groups, and writing or editing articles for high-impact journals. In addition to helping the mentee, the sponsor wants to advance the mentee's career because they want to maximise the potential of accomplished people to advance their respective fields [5].

The "connector" type of mentor often matches up mentees with sponsors, mentors, or other mentees. The connections are well-known people who have gained a lot of social and political capital as a result of their own scholastic accomplishment.

Despite the fact that there are many different kinds of mentoring relationships, many mentors may discover that their position has not been precisely defined from the start of the relationship with their mentee. Perhaps this is a chance mentor that a younger, less experienced person looks up to, confides in, and asks for assistance from. This kind of mentor also has a lot to contribute, even though there may not be any expectation that they will provide wise counsel or quick fixes.

Academic mentoring: benefits vs. reality

Numerous observational studies in primary care, obstetrics/gynecology, and surgery have shown the advantages of mentorship, despite the fact that no randomized controlled research has examined the effectiveness of mentoring. First of all, academic clinicians who got consistent mentoring had a better record of publications, had a better track record of obtaining research funds, spent more time performing research, and helped mentor others.

Women and mentorship

Without a mentor, academic success can be difficult for women in particular. In a poll of medical students, house staff, and junior professors done at the University of California, San Francisco, more women (22% junior faculty and 21% house staff) than men (9% junior faculty and 16.5% house staff) reported not having a professional mentor.

Formal vs. informal mentorship

Uncertainty exists on whether mentors should be formally allocated or self-identified (i.e., informal mentoring). One benefit of a formal mentoring programme is that it will guarantee that every mentee has access to a mentor, along with a curriculum that includes clear expectations, goals, and meeting times [6]. Informal mentoring lacks specific objectives but gives the pair the freedom to create their own based on their needs and timetable.

Mentoring in nephrology: issues and potential solutions

Nephrology's current largest problem may be a lack of enthusiasm for the area, which prevents people from even looking for mentors. In our field, this is an urgent issue that requires rapid response. A large portion of the responsibility has rested on the mentors: how can one rise to the challenge and inspire fresh interest? High work loads, expanding regulatory requirements, a poor work-life balance, and decreased pay scales compared to workload are a few factors contributing to this decline in interest.

Early persuasion occurs. medical and graduate students are exposed to renal physiology, personalised medicine, and disparities in healthcare through cutting-edge programmes like the kidney tutored research and education for kidney students program, a creation of the American Society of Nephrology (ASN). Workforce committee based at the mount desert island biologic laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine and at the university of Chicago in Illinois. Another tactic is to give students and residents outpatient dialysis and transplant rotations, which are intended to highlight the rewarding longterm relationship between the nephrologist, the patient, and the family. These introductions aim to highlight the patient-centered care that is at the core of our discipline [7].

Patient, as well as the patient's relatives. Women in Nephrology (WIN) was founded in 1983 to address specific gender issues in the field of nephrology. An all-inclusive community of these minority nephrologists was intended to enable women to more readily play leadership roles and have voice in predominately male industry. A robust mentorship culture and open communication with both male and female coworkers were the driving principles. For young, mid-career, and senior women to acquire national prominence and leadership roles in their respective institutions and to be more broadly represented in the leadership of their professional societies, professional development seminars were developed.

Conclusion

Mentorship is essential for success in the sector and for the individual, and it is now very essential for nephrology. As a result, mentoring needs to be formally acknowledged and appropriately compensated. A mentorship award is notable as not being offered by either of the two major US nephrology societies, the ASN or National Kidney Foundation. Since the majority of the current research is survey or interview based and prone to bias, mentoring should be carefully investigated, just like any other scientific discipline. Outstanding mentoring is a potent instrument that, when used effectively, may motivate upcoming generations of nephrologists and make sure that the field's future is confident, energetic, and positive.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest by author.

References

1. Chan, Ellen LP, Tahir Masood Ahmed, Marian Wang, and James CM Chan. "History of medicine and nephrology in Asia." Am J Nephrol 14 (1994): 295-301.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Parker, Mark G., Tod Ibrahim, Rachel Shaffer and Mitchell H. Rosner, et al. "The future nephrology workforce: Will there be one?" Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6 (2011): 1501-1506.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Musso, Carlos G. "Geriatric nephrology and thenephrogeriatric giants'." Int Urol Nephrol 34 (2002): 255.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Turner, Neil N., Norbert Lameire, David J. Goldsmith and Christopher G. Winearls, et al. Oxford textbook of clinical nephrology. Oxford University Press, 2015.
5. Ruiz Irastorza, Guillermo, Gerard Espinosa, Miguel A. Frutos and Juan Jiménez Alonso, et al. "Diagnosis and treatment of lupus nephritis. Consensus document from the systemic auto-immune disease group (GEAS) of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI) and the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN)." Nefrología 32 (2012): 1-35.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Niel, Olivier, and Paul Bastard. "Artificial intelligence in nephrology: core concepts, clinical applications, and perspectives." Am J Kidney Dis 74 (2019): 803-810.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

7. Kim, Jisoo and Jihwan Park. "Single-cell transcriptomics: a novel precision medicine technique in nephrology." Korean J Intern Med 36 (2021): 479-490.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at