These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Aligning Urology Residency Training With Real-World Workforce Needs.
    Author: Cruz AP, Skolarus TA, Ambani SN, Hafez K, Kraft KH.
    Journal: J Surg Educ; 2021; 78(3):820-827. PubMed ID: 33046414.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Research suggests recently graduated urology residents do not feel ready for independent practice. We conducted a study to determine if Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) minimum case requirements, resident case logs, and graduating resident perceived readiness for practice are aligned with the procedural demand and needs of the current urology workforce. DESIGN: Correlative study comparing the association between (1) workforce demand and ACGME case requirements, and (2) workforce demand and perceived resident competency. Three distinct datasets were used; (1) the 2017 Medicare Part B National Summary Data File; (2) the 2017 National Data Report published by the ACGME; and (3) a graduating resident survey from Okhunov et al. SETTING: N/A. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. RESULTS: In 2017, there were a total of 6,784,696 urologic cases performed through Medicare. We found nonsignificant positive associations between resident case logs (rho = 0.16, p = 0.5784), ACGME minimum procedure requirements (rho = 0.42, p = 0.1255), and Medicare procedural demand. Our 15 index procedures accounted for 21.1% (n = 1,431,775) of all Medicare cases, with a median number of 7706 procedures. Endopyelotomy was the least common procedure (n = 98), while cystoscopy was the most common (n = 980,623). Medicare case volume was positively correlated with graduating residents' procedural confidence (r = 0.86, p < 0.0001). We identified four categories with varied alignment of training and demand: (1) high volume and high confidence, (2) high volume and low confidence, (3) low volume and high confidence, and (4) low volume and low confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing urology residency training is time-sensitive and important. Using national Medicare data coupled with recently graduated urology resident survey results, we provide a guiding framework for improving the alignment of training with workforce demand. Informed by these results, we recommend altering training requirements to reflect these needs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]