MP12-02 THE NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NOVEL RESIDENCY CURRICULUM: THIRTEEN-YEAR EXPERIENCE WITH A FULL FIVE-YEAR UROLOGY OVERSIGHT PROGRAM

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research II (MP12)1 Sep 2021MP12-02 THE NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NOVEL RESIDENCY CURRICULUM: THIRTEEN-YEAR EXPERIENCE WITH A FULL FIVE-YEAR UROLOGY OVERSIGHT PROGRAM Lauren Folgosa Cooley, Dylan Isaacson, Kelly Ross, and Stephanie Kielb Lauren Folgosa CooleyLauren Folgosa Cooley More articles by this author , Dylan IsaacsonDylan Isaacson More articles by this author , Kelly RossKelly Ross More articles by this author , and Stephanie KielbStephanie Kielb More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001985.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In July 2006, the urology residency program at Northwestern introduced its novel curriculum. The curriculum emphasizes urology-directed PGY-1 and PGY-2 years, general surgery rotations determined by the program director (PD) based on educational rationale and six months of elective time. The curriculum was tested as a pilot then fully adopted and utilized for the next thirteen years. In this work, we present educational outcomes under the novel curriculum. METHODS: Rotation schedules and resident electives were recorded each year under the new curriculum. Operative case logs and AUA In-Service Examination scores were collected prospectively from 2001-2018. Residents and faculty rated satisfaction with the residency program on a five-point Likert scale from “poor” to “outstanding” from 2004-2018. Unpaired T-tests were used to compare continuous variables between the years before versus after curriculum introduction. RESULTS: From 2006-2020, residents completed 4 and 2 months of general surgery (GS) rotations in their PGY-1 and PGY-2 years, respectively. One-half of the PGY-1 GS rotations were changed for educational reasons by the PD every year, while PGY-2 rotations - transplant and advanced surgical critical care - were unchanged. Average cases logged per resident and In-Service Exam scores were comparable between groups, however residents had earlier exposure to the in-service exam as PGY-1 residents instead of PGY-2. The percentage of faculty and residents describing the program as “outstanding” increased from 50% in 2004-2005 to 82% in 2017-2018 (Figure 1). The most popular electives (total months) were plastic surgery (35.3), diagnostic radiology (33.1), international (20), medical oncology (13.3) and pathology (12.1). All residents matriculating under the new curriculum took and passed their written boards. CONCLUSIONS: After thirteen years with the novel curriculum, resident case numbers and In-Service Exam scores remained similar while faculty/resident satisfaction increased. Direct PD control of GS rotations allowed adjustments based on educational rationale. These results demonstrate that a urology-directed and flexible residency program can be instituted without compromising learner outcomes. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e188-e189 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Lauren Folgosa Cooley More articles by this author Dylan Isaacson More articles by this author Kelly Ross More articles by this author Stephanie Kielb More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...