OBJECTIVE: We aimed to clarify the scope of pediatric urological procedures that Canadian urology residents are perceived to be competent to perform upon graduation. METHODS: We conducted a survey from April 2005 to June 2006 of urology residency program directors (UPDs), senior urology residents (SURs) and Pediatric Urologists of Canada (PUC) members from all 12 Canadian training programs. Questions focused on which of 23 pediatric urological procedures the 3 study groups perceived urology residents would be competent to perform upon completion of residency without further fellowship training. Procedures were based on the "A," "B" and "C" lists of procedures (least complex to most complex) as outlined in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Objectives of Training in Urology. RESULTS: Response rates were 12/12 (100%), 41/53 (77%) and 17/23 (74%) for UPDs, SURs and PUC members, respectively. Average exposure to pediatric urology during residency was 5.4 (range 3-9) months and considered sufficient by 75% of UPDs and 69% of SURs, but only 41% of PUC members (p = 0.05). Overall, the 3 groups disagreed on the level of competence for performing level "A" and "B" procedures, with significant disagreement between PUC members and UPDs as well as SURs (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: PUC members perceive Canadian urology residents' exposure to pediatric urology as insufficient and their competence for procedures of low to moderate complexity as inadequate. Further investigation regarding exposure to and competence in other emerging subspecialty spheres of urology may be warranted. Ongoing assessment of the objectives for training in pediatric urology is required.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to clarify the scope of pediatric urological procedures that Canadian urology residents are perceived to be competent to perform upon graduation. METHODS: We conducted a survey from April 2005 to June 2006 of urology residency program directors (UPDs), senior urology residents (SURs) and Pediatric Urologists of Canada (PUC) members from all 12 Canadian training programs. Questions focused on which of 23 pediatric urological procedures the 3 study groups perceived urology residents would be competent to perform upon completion of residency without further fellowship training. Procedures were based on the "A," "B" and "C" lists of procedures (least complex to most complex) as outlined in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Objectives of Training in Urology. RESULTS: Response rates were 12/12 (100%), 41/53 (77%) and 17/23 (74%) for UPDs, SURs and PUC members, respectively. Average exposure to pediatric urology during residency was 5.4 (range 3-9) months and considered sufficient by 75% of UPDs and 69% of SURs, but only 41% of PUC members (p = 0.05). Overall, the 3 groups disagreed on the level of competence for performing level "A" and "B" procedures, with significant disagreement between PUC members and UPDs as well as SURs (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: PUC members perceive Canadian urology residents' exposure to pediatric urology as insufficient and their competence for procedures of low to moderate complexity as inadequate. Further investigation regarding exposure to and competence in other emerging subspecialty spheres of urology may be warranted. Ongoing assessment of the objectives for training in pediatric urology is required.
Authors: Ahmed S Zakaria; Richard Haddad; Alice Dragomir; Wassim Kassouf; Sero Andonian; Armen G Aprikian Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 1.862