Kevin R Loughlin1. 1. Division of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The current status of urological education in medical schools in the United States was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire regarding medical student teaching was sent to the program directors of the 118 urological residency programs in the United States. RESULTS: Of the 118 individuals 95 (81%) completed and returned the questionnaire. Three urology programs were not affiliated with medical schools and had no contact with medical students. In 29 programs (32%) there were no urology faculty lectures in the preclinical years. At 46 schools (50%) there was no urology lecture in the physical diagnosis course. Compared to a decade ago program directors believed that exposure to urology was about the same at 41 schools (45%), increased at 20 (22%) but decreased at 31 (34%). Finally, 60 program directors (65%) stated that it was possible for a student to graduate from the school without any clinical exposure to urology. CONCLUSIONS: This survey identifies alarming trends that, if left uncorrected, could adversely affect patient care in the future, particularly as the population of the United States ages. In addition, these trends may jeopardize the number and quality of future urological residency applicants.
PURPOSE: The current status of urological education in medical schools in the United States was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire regarding medical student teaching was sent to the program directors of the 118 urological residency programs in the United States. RESULTS: Of the 118 individuals 95 (81%) completed and returned the questionnaire. Three urology programs were not affiliated with medical schools and had no contact with medical students. In 29 programs (32%) there were no urology faculty lectures in the preclinical years. At 46 schools (50%) there was no urology lecture in the physical diagnosis course. Compared to a decade ago program directors believed that exposure to urology was about the same at 41 schools (45%), increased at 20 (22%) but decreased at 31 (34%). Finally, 60 program directors (65%) stated that it was possible for a student to graduate from the school without any clinical exposure to urology. CONCLUSIONS: This survey identifies alarming trends that, if left uncorrected, could adversely affect patient care in the future, particularly as the population of the United States ages. In addition, these trends may jeopardize the number and quality of future urological residency applicants.
Authors: Patrick Jones; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Hasan A R Qazi; Bhaskar K Somani; Ghulam Nabi Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Alexander Kutikov; Jason Bonslaver; Jessica T Casey; Justin Degrado; Beau N Dusseault; Janelle A Fox; Desri Lashley-Rogers; Ingride Richardson; Marc C Smaldone; Peter L Steinberg; Deep B Trivedi; Jonathan C Routh Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-12-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: E J Redmond; N P Kelly; C McCarthy; E Ní Mhurchú; H Hayes; C Flynn; D O'Shea; S K Giri; H D Flood Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 1.568