Fellow or foe: the impact of fellowship training programs on the education of Canadian urology residents

Authors

  • Ethan D. Grober Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women’s College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
  • Dean S. Elterman Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
  • Michael A.S. Jewett Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital and the University Health Network, University of Toronto,Toronto, ON

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.522

Abstract

Objective: Throughout North America, increasing emphasis is being placed on
surgical fellowships. Surgical educators and trainees have raised concerns that
the escalating focus on fellowships may threaten the educational mission of more
novice trainees. Our objective was to collect opinions from multiple perspectives
(faculty, fellows and residents) regarding fellowship structure, fellow selection
and the impact of clinical fellowships on urology resident training.

Methods: We anonymously surveyed 52 members of a major academic urology
training program (University of Toronto) with established fellowship training
programs for their opinions regarding fellowship structure, fellow selection,
and the impact on resident training and education.

Results: The overall response rate was 88%. We identified significant differences
of opinion among faculty, fellows and residents regarding fellowship
structure, fellow selection and the impact on resident education. Specifically,
faculty and fellows supported the addition of more fellows, felt that certain complex
cases should be designated as “fellow cases” and that residents’ research
opportunities were not restricted. Residents felt that fellows “steal” operative
cases, that performing operations with the fellow is not equivalent to performing
operations with faculty alone and that fellowship candidates should
perform an operation with division faculty as part of the application process.
There was agreement that fellowship programs add value to residents’ overall
education, that fellows should participate in the call schedule and that
fellows’ role in the operating room needs to be better defined with respect to
case volume and selection. Proficiency in technical skills, clinical knowledge,
teaching and teamwork were cited as the most attractive characteristics
of an effective clinical fellow.

Conclusion: Residency and fellowship program directors must clearly define
the role of the fellow and outline the limits of surgical practice, establish clear
and consistent guidelines outlining responsibilities (operative, clinical and
on-call), and open lines of communication to ensure that all opinions are
recognized and addressed. Finally, they must select fellows with proficient technical
skills, clinical knowledge, teaching ability and work ethic to ensure that
they focus on “specialized” training.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Ethan D. Grober, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital and Women’s College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON

Dean S. Elterman, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON

Michael A.S. Jewett, Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital and the University Health Network, University of Toronto,Toronto, ON

Downloads

How to Cite

Grober, E. D., Elterman, D. S., & Jewett, M. A. (2013). Fellow or foe: the impact of fellowship training programs on the education of Canadian urology residents. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 2(1), 33–7. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.522

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2008): CUAJ February

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.