Competence in pediatric urology upon graduation from residency: perceptions of residents, program directors and pediatric urologists

Authors

  • Jennifer J. Mickelson Department of Pediatric Urology, Children’s Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Ill.
  • Andrew E. MacNeily Department of Pediatric Urology, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC
  • Dinesh Samarasekera Department of Urological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • Darren Beiko Department of Urology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.
  • Kourosh Afshar Department of Pediatric Urology, BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.596

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to clarify the scope of pediatric urological procedures that Canadian urology residents are perceived to be competent to perform upon graduation.

Methods: We conducted a survey from April 2005 to June 2006 of urology residency program directors (UPDs), senior urology residents (SURs) and Pediatric Urologists of Canada (PUC) members from all 12 Canadian training programs. Questions focused on which of 23 pediatric urological procedures the 3 study groups perceived urology residents would be competent to perform upon completion of residency without further fellowship training. Procedures were based on the “A,” “B” and “C” lists of procedures (least complex to most complex) as outlined in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Objectives of Training in Urology.

Results: Response rates were 12/12 (100%), 41/53 (77%) and 17/23 (74%) for UPDs, SURs and PUC members, respectively. Average exposure to pediatric urology during residency was 5.4 (range 3–9) months and considered sufficient by 75% of UPDs and 69% of SURs, but only 41% of PUC members (p = 0.05). Overall, the 3 groups disagreed on the level of competence for performing level “A” and “B” procedures, with significant disagreement between PUC members and UPDs as well as SURs (p < 0.005).

Conclusion: PUC members perceive Canadian urology residents’ exposure to pediatric urology as insufficient and their competence for procedures of low to moderate complexity as inadequate. Further investigation regarding exposure to and competence in other emerging subspecialty spheres of urology may be warranted. Ongoing assessment of the objectives for training in pediatric urology is required.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

How to Cite

Mickelson, J. J., MacNeily, A. E., Samarasekera, D., Beiko, D., & Afshar, K. (2013). Competence in pediatric urology upon graduation from residency: perceptions of residents, program directors and pediatric urologists. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 2(3), 205–210. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.596

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 3 (2008): 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.