Evaluation of the urology residency training program in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study.

Abstract

Purpose:This study evaluates the satisfaction of urology residents with the Saudi Board of Urology (SBU) Training Program and identifies areas of weakness and strength to improve the educational environment, surgical competency, and overall satisfaction of urology residents with the program.Methods:We administered an electronic self-made questionnaire that included two sections. One comprised demographic data (age, gender, weight, height, marital status, level of training, city of training, and center of training), while the other concerned SBU evaluation (satisfaction with different aspects of training, such as ways of assessment, mentors’ feedback, surgical competency, research, and strengths and weaknesses of SBU).Results:The overall satisfaction of urology residency program was 28.8% while 44.2% of residents had a neutral response. The highest level of satisfaction with clinical and surgical practice was among graduates (56.9%) and Riyadh residents (45.1%). Furthermore, good work/life balance received the lowest level of satisfaction (5.2%) among senior residents, while good clinical experience received the highest level (62.7%) among the graduates. Residents reported a high exposure in endourology and pediatric urology, while transplant, reconstructive, and neurourology had the lowest exposure. Forty-two percent of respondents undertook research during their residency training, but most respondents (54%) did not publish any research papers during their training. Sixty-two percent of graduates felt that their training program did not prepare them adequately to perform well on the board examinations.Conclusion:Our results confirmed that satisfaction of residents with the urology program process is variable according to the city of training. Having high satisfaction level in some cities reflects the improvement of urology training program after restructuring. We identified new areas in need of improvement, namely lack of mentorship, clear and formal assessment process, and variation of training process between central and peripheral programs.