Current status of urological training and differences between institutions

Abstract

ObjectivesAppropriate training of urology residents is important to secure not only high-quality patient care, but also the bright future of our specialty. We aimed to investigate residency training from the perspective of qualification and standardization and to evaluate surgical education, publication output, working conditions, future plans, and overall satisfaction, in a comprehensive way. MethodsWe conducted a survey of urology chief residents/recent graduates in Turkey to identify differences between institutions and deficiencies in urology resident training. A total of 155 chief residents/recently graduated specialists were contacted by phone and a survey was completed. ResultsThe survey response rate was 96.1%. Respondents had high proficiency in endourology (97.3%), similar to Canada and European countries. However, they reported a lack of proficiency in laparoscopy (28.9%) and functional urology (26.2%). Also, no one had completed a robotic procedure as first surgeon. A total of 75.2% respondents had no first author publication, and 10.1% had no first author abstract presentation. There was no significant difference between institution types with or without certification. There was a satisfaction rate of 87.2% among participants. ConclusionsIt was observed that qualified and standardized training could has not been achieved and the positive effects of certification have not been seen yet. There is a lack of modernization in all aspects of education, and there is no standardized curriculum addressing academic research. Therefore, there is a risk that future urologists will have insufficient skills. We hope this study serves as a guide for modernization and standardization in urology training.