Abstract
We sought to highlight the perspective of the Residency Review Committee for Urology regarding the current changes in residency program accreditation. Although the pedagogic underpinnings of the shift of the American Committee for Graduate Medical Education to outcomes-based accreditation appear solid, several concerns were raised by the Residency Review Committee for Urology: the paucity of effective evaluation tools, the likely increased expense of these measures, and the lack of evidence that these changes will ultimately improve the training of residents. As a result, the Committee plans to continue cautiously (but optimistically) in the process of incorporating the teaching and evaluation of the clinical competencies in the program requirements.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
