Are Canadian urology residency programs fulfilling the Royal College expectations?: A survey of graduated chief residents
Keywords:Chief residents, urology, Royal College, training, residency
Introduction: We assess outgoing Canadian urology chief residents’ well-being, their satisfaction with their surgical training, and their proficiency in surgical procedures throughout their residency program.
Methods: In 2012 an anonymous survey was sent by email to all 29 graduated urology chief residents across Canada. The survey included a list of all urologic surgical procedures listed by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC). According to the A/B/C classification used to assess competence in these procedures (A most competent, C least competent), we asked chief residents to self-classify their competence with regards to each procedure and we compared the final results to the current RCPSC classification.
Results: The overall response rate among chief residents surveyed was 97%. An overwhelming majority (96.4%) of residents agreed that the residency program has affected their overall well-being, as well as their relationships with their families and/or partners (67.8%). Overall, 85.7% agreed that research was an integral part of the residency program and 78.6% have enrolled in a fellowship program post-graduation. Respondents believed that they have received the least adequate training in robotic surgery (89.3%), followed by female urology (67.8%), andrology/sexual medicine/infertility (67.8%), and reconstructive urology (61.4%). Interestingly, in several of the 42 surgical procedures classified as category A by the RCPSC, a significant percentage of residents felt that their proficiency was not category A, including repair of urinary fistulae (82.1%), pediatric indirect hernia repair and meatal repair for glanular hypospadias (67.9%), open pyeloplasty (64.3%), anteriorpelvic exenteration (61.6%), open varicocelectomy (60.7%) and radical cystoprostatectomy (33.3%). Furthermore, all respondents (100%) believed they were deficient in at least 1 of the 42 category A procedures, while 53.6 % believed they were deficient in at least 10 of the 42 procedures.
Conclusions: Most residents agree that their residency program has affected their overall well-being as well as their relationships with their families and/or partners. There is also a clear deficiency in what outgoing residents perceive they have achieved and what the RCPSC mandates. Future work should concentrate on addressing this discrepancy to assure that training and RCPSC expectations are better aligned.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.