Royal College surgical objectives of urologic training: A survey of faculty members from Canadian training programs

Authors

  • Ahmed Sayed Zakaria MD,M.Sc Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC
  • Richard Haddad M.S., FRACS Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC
  • Alice Dragomir PhD Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC
  • Wassim Kassouf MD, FRCSC Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC
  • Sero Andonian MD, FRCSC Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC
  • Armen Garo Aprikian MD, FRCSC Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGill University, Montreal, QC

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1720

Keywords:

Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Urologic training, Faculty members, Residency

Abstract

Introduction: According to the Royal College objectives of training in urology, urologic surgical procedures are divided as category A, B and C. We wanted to determine the level of proficiency required and achieved by urology training faculty for Royal College accreditation.

Methods: We conducted a survey that was sent electronically to all Canadian urology training faculty. Questions focused on demographics (i.e., years of practice, geographic location, subspecialty, access to robotic surgery), operating room contact with residents, opinion on the level of proficiency required from a list of 54 surgical procedures, and whether their most recent graduates attained category A proficiency in these procedures.

Results: The response rate was 43.7% (95/217). Among respondents, 92.6% were full timers, 21.1% practiced urology for less than 5 years and 3.2% for more than 30 years. Responses from Quebec and Ontario formed 69.4% (34.7% each). Of the respondents, 37.9% were uro-oncologists and 75.7% reported having access to robotic surgery. Sixty percent of faculty members operate with R5 residents between 2 to 5 days per month. When respondents were asked which categories should be listed as category A, only 8 procedures received 100% agreement. Also, results varied significantly when analyzed by sub-specialty. For example, almost 50% or more of uro-oncologists believed that radical cystectomy, anterior pelvic exenteration and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy should not be category A. The following procedures had significant disagreement suggesting the need for re-classification: glanular hypospadias repair, boari flap, entero-vesical and vesico-vaginal fistulae repair. Overall, more than 80% of faculty reported that their recent graduating residents had achieved category A proficiency, in a subset of procedures. However, more than 50% of all faculty either disagreed or were ambivalent that all of their graduating residents were Category A proficient in several procedures.

Conclusions: There is sufficient disagreement among Canadian urology faculty to suggest another revision of the current Royal College list of category A procedures.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2014-06-16

How to Cite

Zakaria, A. S., Haddad, R., Dragomir, A., Kassouf, W., Andonian, S., & Aprikian, A. G. (2014). Royal College surgical objectives of urologic training: A survey of faculty members from Canadian training programs. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 8(5-6), 167–72. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1720

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 5-6 (2014): CUAJ June

Section

Original Research

License

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.