BACKGROUND: It is difficult to determine the effect of a residency program on the life of staff urologists. The objective of this study was to obtain subjective reports from urologists who have practiced before and after the implementation of a training program on how it affects their careers in 5 spheres: education, job-stress, free time, financial life and subjective quality of life. METHODS: We asked urologists from McMaster University to complete a questionnaire to quantify how their current experiences have changed compared to the pre-residency program era on a balanced 7-point scale (4 = neutral). RESULTS: The response rate was 100% (9/9). Eight of the 9 urologists (89%) reported they would implement the program again if they could rewind the clock. Eight of 9 reported their overall career-related quality of life improved, with an average rating of 5.1 on the 7-point scale. The quality of continuing education was the most positive ranking at 5.4 followed by job stress at 5.2. The outcomes measured below 4 (neutral) were earning potential at 3.8 and ability to engage in pastimes at 3.4. Earning potential was clustered tightly around neutral, with 7 of the 9 respondents reporting no change. The largest standard deviation, corresponding to the most disagreement, was in their ability to engage in pastimes. CONCLUSION: Even with a mild decrease in earning potential and increased job stress, McMaster urologists feel their quality of life and continuing education have improved since the program's implementation; these urologists are almost uniformly happy they started a residency teaching program at their centre.
BACKGROUND: It is difficult to determine the effect of a residency program on the life of staff urologists. The objective of this study was to obtain subjective reports from urologists who have practiced before and after the implementation of a training program on how it affects their careers in 5 spheres: education, job-stress, free time, financial life and subjective quality of life. METHODS: We asked urologists from McMaster University to complete a questionnaire to quantify how their current experiences have changed compared to the pre-residency program era on a balanced 7-point scale (4 = neutral). RESULTS: The response rate was 100% (9/9). Eight of the 9 urologists (89%) reported they would implement the program again if they could rewind the clock. Eight of 9 reported their overall career-related quality of life improved, with an average rating of 5.1 on the 7-point scale. The quality of continuing education was the most positive ranking at 5.4 followed by job stress at 5.2. The outcomes measured below 4 (neutral) were earning potential at 3.8 and ability to engage in pastimes at 3.4. Earning potential was clustered tightly around neutral, with 7 of the 9 respondents reporting no change. The largest standard deviation, corresponding to the most disagreement, was in their ability to engage in pastimes. CONCLUSION: Even with a mild decrease in earning potential and increased job stress, McMaster urologists feel their quality of life and continuing education have improved since the program's implementation; these urologists are almost uniformly happy they started a residency teaching program at their centre.
Authors: S Shea; K G Nickerson; J Tenenbaum; T Q Morris; D Rabinowitz; K O'Donnell; E Perez; M L Weisfeldt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-01-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Timothy J Babineau; James Becker; Gary Gibbons; Stephen Sentovich; Donald Hess; Sharon Robertson; Michael Stone Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2004-04