Riccardo Ballario1, Emanuele Rubilotta. 1. Department of Urology, University of Verona, Policlinico Hospital, Piazza Scuro, 10, 37134 Verona, Italy. riccardo.ballario@virgilio.it
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the training and the general and financial conditions of European residents in urology. METHODS: Between February and April 2004 a questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 351 residents in urology in 30 different European countries. The questionnaire was divided into four different sections concerning general and financial conditions, clinical and surgical practice, research activities and participation in scientific meetings. RESULTS: One hundred and one trainees from 30 European countries completed the questionnaire and returned it, a response rate of 28.8%. The results of greatest interest were that 30% of the trainees feel there are too many residents in their departments, 34% have a compulsory annual assessment and 83.2% have a final qualifying examination. The majority of trainees say their experience in minor surgery is at least fair, while 33% and 36% have poor or non-existent experience in major surgery and endourology respectively. Furthermore, half of the respondents do not have the support of a tutor in their clinical practice. The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines are frequently used and their implementation in clinical practice is advocated by 96% of the respondents. The vast majority of the respondents are planning to become Fellows of the European Board of Urology (FEBU) and members of the EAU. CONCLUSION: This survey shows that, even if the general characteristics of different training programmes seem to be similar, the products of these systems present various discrepancies in terms of surgical and clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the training and the general and financial conditions of European residents in urology. METHODS: Between February and April 2004 a questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 351 residents in urology in 30 different European countries. The questionnaire was divided into four different sections concerning general and financial conditions, clinical and surgical practice, research activities and participation in scientific meetings. RESULTS: One hundred and one trainees from 30 European countries completed the questionnaire and returned it, a response rate of 28.8%. The results of greatest interest were that 30% of the trainees feel there are too many residents in their departments, 34% have a compulsory annual assessment and 83.2% have a final qualifying examination. The majority of trainees say their experience in minor surgery is at least fair, while 33% and 36% have poor or non-existent experience in major surgery and endourology respectively. Furthermore, half of the respondents do not have the support of a tutor in their clinical practice. The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines are frequently used and their implementation in clinical practice is advocated by 96% of the respondents. The vast majority of the respondents are planning to become Fellows of the European Board of Urology (FEBU) and members of the EAU. CONCLUSION: This survey shows that, even if the general characteristics of different training programmes seem to be similar, the products of these systems present various discrepancies in terms of surgical and clinical practice.