Search

Optimal kidney care requires a trained nephrology workforce, essential healthcare services, and medications. This study aimed to identify the access to these resources on a global scale using data from the multinational survey conducted by the International Society of Nephrology (ISN) (Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) project), with emphasis on developing nations. For data analysis, the 125 participating countries were sorted into the 4 World Bank income groups: low income (LIC), lower-middle income (LMIC), upper-middle income (UMIC), and high income (HIC). A severe shortage of nephrologists was observed in LIC and LMIC with < 5 nephrologists per million population. Many LIC were unable to access estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria (proteinuria) tests in primary-care levels. Acute and chronic hemodialysis was available in most countries, although acute and chronic peritoneal dialysis access was severely limited in LIC (24% and 35%, respectively). Most countries had kidney transplantation access, except for LIC (12%). HIC and UMIC funded their renal replacement therapy (RRT) and renal medications primarily through public means, whereas LMIC and LIC required private and out-of-pocket contributions. In conclusion, this study found a huge gap in the availability and access to trained nephrology workforce, tools for diagnosis and management of CKD, RRT, and funding of RRT and essential medications in LIC and LMIC.

An effective workforce is essential for delivery of high-quality chronic disease care. Low-income nations are challenged by a dearth and/or maldistribution of an essential workforce required for all chronic disease care including chronic kidney disease (CKD). Nephrology education and training in developed countries have grown at pace with the technological advancement in the practice of medicine in order to meet the standards required of kidney health professionals towards high-quality, patient-centered medical care. The standards designed by institutions and/or professional societies, such as Royal Colleges and Medical Councils in high-income nations with well-developed health systems and infrastructures, are often not easily translatable to issues critical to nephrology practice in low-income nations. Little or no guidance is provided on common nephrological issues of regional nature or pertaining to ethnic minorities and disadvantaged groups living in those countries. There is an emergent need for a training curriculum that meets the needs and peculiarities of the developing nations, and this needs to leverage on the existing and well-validated systems of training across the globe. We evaluated nephrology training programs across 25 upper-middle and high-income nations to identify best practices and opportunities for adoption in low-income nations. We reviewed training guidelines from major professional societies on content and process of training. There are similarities and differences in structure, content, and process of training programs across countries, and there are clearly adoptable concepts/frameworks for application in low-income nations. We provide recommendations and a strategic plan for the future focus of nephrology training in the developing world to align with current trends in technological advancement and development as well as the need for emphasis on prevention of CKD. The essential competencies (patient- and population--based) required of a nephrologist in a developing world setting are outlined with practical measures and an action plan for adoption.

Importance: Kidney disease is a substantial worldwide clinical and public health problem, but information about available care is limited.Objective: To collect information on the current state of readiness, capacity, and competence for the delivery of kidney care across countries and regions of the world.Design, Setting, and Participants: Questionnaire survey administered from May to September 2016 by the International Society of Nephrology (ISN) to 130 ISN-affiliated countries with sampling of key stakeholders (national nephrology society leadership, policy makers, and patient organization representatives) identified by the country and regional nephrology leadership through the ISN.Main Outcomes and Measures: Core areas of country capacity and response for kidney care.Results: Responses were received from 125 of 130 countries (96%), including 289 of 337 individuals (85.8%, with a median of 2 respondents [interquartile range, 1-3]), representing an estimated 93% (6.8 billion) of the world's population of 7.3 billion. There was wide variation in country readiness, capacity, and response in terms of service delivery, financing, workforce, information systems, and leadership and governance. Overall, 119 (95%), 95 (76%), and 94 (75%) countries had facilities for hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplantation, respectively. In contrast, 33 (94%), 16 (45%), and 12 (34%) countries in Africa had facilities for hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplantation, respectively. For chronic kidney disease (CKD) monitoring in primary care, serum creatinine with estimated glomerular filtration rate and proteinuria measurements were reported as always available in only 21 (18%) and 9 (8%) countries, respectively. Hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and transplantation services were funded publicly and free at the point of care delivery in 50 (42%), 48 (51%), and 46 (49%) countries, respectively. The number of nephrologists was variable and was low (<10 per million population) in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and Oceania and South East Asia (OSEA) regions. Health information system (renal registry) availability was limited, particularly for acute kidney injury (8 countries [7%]) and nondialysis CKD (9 countries [8%]). International acute kidney injury and CKD guidelines were reportedly accessible in 52 (45%) and 62 (52%) countries, respectively. There was relatively low capacity for clinical studies in developing nations.Conclusions and Relevance: This survey demonstrated significant interregional and intraregional variability in the current capacity for kidney care across the world, including important gaps in services and workforce. Assuming the responses accurately reflect the status of kidney care in the respondent countries, the findings may be useful to inform efforts to improve the quality of kidney care worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]