Brijesh G Patel1, Kelsey Gallo2, Edward E Cherullo3, Alexander K Chow3. 1. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: Brijesh_G_Patel@rush.edu. 2. University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA. 3. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on the web pages of academic Urology departments in the United States and to evaluate for consistency of information available to applicants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American Urologic Association accredited listing of US urology residency programs was accessed in January 2018. One hundred and thirty-five urology residency program websites were then accessed and searched for the presence or absence of 44 criteria. Criteria were grouped into 7 categories: program overview and contact information, application information, program curriculum, current residents, alumni, faculty, and resident benefits. Programs were categorized based on US census bureau designated regions, program size, and by program ranking by the Doximity Urology Residency Program Navigator. RESULTS: Out of 135, 134 (99%) of the AUA accredited listing of US urology residency programs had functional websites. The most commonly available information included clinical rotation sites (84%), resident curriculum (78%), number and names of current residents (76% and 77%, respectively), and faculty names and corresponding subspecialties (74% and 72%, respectively). These trends were similar across geographic regions. The top 20 residency programs on Doximity were more likely to list alumni names (70% vs 35%, P = .005), alumni fellowships (75% vs 30% P = .0003) and alumni jobs (75% vs 29%, P = .001) compared to all other residency programs. CONCLUSION: There is high variability regarding comprehensiveness of urology residency websites. An informative and well-constructed website has the potential to improve optics and marketability of a residency program. Top notch residency programs are more likely to display fellowship and faculty information, both desirable prospects after residency.
OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on the web pages of academic Urology departments in the United States and to evaluate for consistency of information available to applicants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American Urologic Association accredited listing of US urology residency programs was accessed in January 2018. One hundred and thirty-five urology residency program websites were then accessed and searched for the presence or absence of 44 criteria. Criteria were grouped into 7 categories: program overview and contact information, application information, program curriculum, current residents, alumni, faculty, and resident benefits. Programs were categorized based on US census bureau designated regions, program size, and by program ranking by the Doximity Urology Residency Program Navigator. RESULTS: Out of 135, 134 (99%) of the AUA accredited listing of US urology residency programs had functional websites. The most commonly available information included clinical rotation sites (84%), resident curriculum (78%), number and names of current residents (76% and 77%, respectively), and faculty names and corresponding subspecialties (74% and 72%, respectively). These trends were similar across geographic regions. The top 20 residency programs on Doximity were more likely to list alumni names (70% vs 35%, P = .005), alumni fellowships (75% vs 30% P = .0003) and alumni jobs (75% vs 29%, P = .001) compared to all other residency programs. CONCLUSION: There is high variability regarding comprehensiveness of urology residency websites. An informative and well-constructed website has the potential to improve optics and marketability of a residency program. Top notch residency programs are more likely to display fellowship and faculty information, both desirable prospects after residency.
Authors: Jordan R Pollock; Jeffery A Weyand; Amy B Reyes; Shiva Senemar; Aunika L Swenson; Rachel A Lindor; James L Homme Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2021-07-15
Authors: Edwin Fundingsland; Joseph Fike; Joshua Calvano; Ali Raja; Deborah Lai; Sara Silacci; Mary Haas; Teresa Chan; Shuhan He Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2021-05-07
Authors: Jordan R Pollock; Michael L Moore; Jacob F Smith; Jonny B Woolstenhulme; Dane J Markham; Joshua R Rhees; Kenneth Poole; Nathan T Pollock; Naresh P Patel Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-06-08
Authors: Kate A Hanson; Michael S Borofsky; Lindsay A Hampson; Benjamin N Breyer; Nora G Kern; Simon L Conti; Stephanie J Kielb; Mathew D Sorensen Journal: Urology Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 2.649