PURPOSE: We report on our first 4 years of experience with a pilot urology residency curriculum. This novel program was approved by the Urology Residency Review Committee and involves a flexible educational program for residents, incorporating elective time (4 months each in postgraduate years 2 and 4 of training) into the residency rotation schedule. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective assessment of the urology residency program overall, the electives chosen by the residents, and the impact on resident operative logs and in-service scores compared to residents completing residency before the implementation of the elective curriculum. Overall faculty and resident evaluation of the residency program and elective curriculum was collected, and categorized as positive, negative or neutral. RESULTS: When comparing the first 3 years of the pilot program to the 5 years before implementation of the program, the average final graduated resident case total increased by 232 (2,390 vs 2,158). Resident in-service scores (postgraduate years 3 to 5) trended higher since the elective program was instituted with a 5% increase in percentile scores compared to their peers (75% vs 72%). Subjective evaluations of the new residency program by residents and faculty were overwhelmingly positive. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot urology residency curriculum including elective time had a positive impact on the program based on resident and faculty feedback without a deleterious effect on urology index case logs or in-service scores.
PURPOSE: We report on our first 4 years of experience with a pilot urology residency curriculum. This novel program was approved by the Urology Residency Review Committee and involves a flexible educational program for residents, incorporating elective time (4 months each in postgraduate years 2 and 4 of training) into the residency rotation schedule. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective assessment of the urology residency program overall, the electives chosen by the residents, and the impact on resident operative logs and in-service scores compared to residents completing residency before the implementation of the elective curriculum. Overall faculty and resident evaluation of the residency program and elective curriculum was collected, and categorized as positive, negative or neutral. RESULTS: When comparing the first 3 years of the pilot program to the 5 years before implementation of the program, the average final graduated resident case total increased by 232 (2,390 vs 2,158). Resident in-service scores (postgraduate years 3 to 5) trended higher since the elective program was instituted with a 5% increase in percentile scores compared to their peers (75% vs 72%). Subjective evaluations of the new residency program by residents and faculty were overwhelmingly positive. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot urology residency curriculum including elective time had a positive impact on the program based on resident and faculty feedback without a deleterious effect on urology index case logs or in-service scores.