PURPOSE: We describe several traditional and novel techniques for teaching and evaluating the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core clinical competencies in a urology residency training program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The evolution and underpinnings of the ACGME Outcome Project were reviewed. Several publications related to the evaluation of clinical competencies as well as current assessment techniques at our institution were also analyzed. RESULTS: Several tools for the assessment of clinical competencies have been developed and refined in response to the ACGME Outcome project. Standardized patient encounters and expanded patient satisfaction surveys may prove useful with regard to assessing resident professionalism, patient care and communication skills. A feasible and possibly undervalued technique for evaluating a number of core competencies is the implementation of formal written appraisals of the nature and quality of resident performance at departmental conferences. The assessment of competency in practice based learning and systems based practice may be achieved through innovative exercises, such as practice guideline development, that assess the evidence for various urologic interventions as well as the financial and administrative aspects of such care. CONCLUSIONS: We describe several contemporary methods for teaching and evaluating the core clinical competencies in a urology training program. While the techniques described are neither comprehensive nor feasible for every program, they nevertheless provide an important starting point for a meaningful exchange of ideas in the urological graduate medical education community.
PURPOSE: We describe several traditional and novel techniques for teaching and evaluating the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core clinical competencies in a urology residency training program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The evolution and underpinnings of the ACGME Outcome Project were reviewed. Several publications related to the evaluation of clinical competencies as well as current assessment techniques at our institution were also analyzed. RESULTS: Several tools for the assessment of clinical competencies have been developed and refined in response to the ACGME Outcome project. Standardized patient encounters and expanded patient satisfaction surveys may prove useful with regard to assessing resident professionalism, patient care and communication skills. A feasible and possibly undervalued technique for evaluating a number of core competencies is the implementation of formal written appraisals of the nature and quality of resident performance at departmental conferences. The assessment of competency in practice based learning and systems based practice may be achieved through innovative exercises, such as practice guideline development, that assess the evidence for various urologic interventions as well as the financial and administrative aspects of such care. CONCLUSIONS: We describe several contemporary methods for teaching and evaluating the core clinical competencies in a urology training program. While the techniques described are neither comprehensive nor feasible for every program, they nevertheless provide an important starting point for a meaningful exchange of ideas in the urological graduate medical education community.