MP51-03 OLDER AND WISER? CHANGES IN UNPROFESSIONAL CONTENT ON UROLOGISTS' SOCIAL MEDIA FROM RESIDENCY TO PRACTICE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Training & Skills Assessment I1 Apr 2017MP51-03 OLDER AND WISER? CHANGES IN UNPROFESSIONAL CONTENT ON UROLOGISTS' SOCIAL MEDIA FROM RESIDENCY TO PRACTICE Max Schmidt-Bowman, Kevin Koo, Zita Ficko, and E. Ann Gormley Max Schmidt-BowmanMax Schmidt-Bowman More articles by this author , Kevin KooKevin Koo More articles by this author , Zita FickoZita Ficko More articles by this author , and E. Ann GormleyE. Ann Gormley More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.1612AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The AUA has encouraged social media use and published online professionalism guidelines. We previously found that at the completion of residency, 40% of recent urology graduates' public social media contained unprofessional (UP) or potentially objectionable (PO) content. This study examines changes in urologists' unprofessional social media content as they transition from residency to practice. METHODS Facebook was queried with the names of all 2015 U.S. urology graduates 1 year after completion of residency. We determined UP/PO content using a rubric based on professionalism guidelines by the ACGME, AMA, and AUA. We noted users who publicly identified as a urologist or affiliated with the AUA. 3 reviewers conducted assessments with strong concordance (κ>0.90). Comparisons were made with data from this cohort collected at the completion of training. RESULTS Of 281 urologists, 198 (70%) had publicly-identifiable Facebook profiles. Of these, 85 (43%) contained any UP or PO content, including 35 (18%) with UP content. Common examples included images of and references to intoxication, explicit profanity, unprofessional behavior at work, and offensive comments about patients. Of the 201 public profiles in this cohort at completion of residency 1 year prior, most profiles (183, 91%) have remained public; of the 18 that were no longer publicly accessible, 9 (50%) had previously had UP/PO content, indicating greater adherence by some urologists to the guidelines. Similarly, of the 80 urologists without public profiles 1 year prior, most (64, 80%) have remained unidentifiable; but of the 16 that have become publicly accessible since then, half had UP/PO content, suggesting parallel changes by other urologists against the guidelines. Of note, among the public profiles in the present analysis, 11 (6%) had posted new UP/PO content since entering practice. Comparing this cohort at present vs at completion of residency, there was minimal difference overall in how many had public profiles (70% vs 71%) or public UP/PO content (43% vs 40%). While more users now self-identified on Facebook as being a urologist (109 vs 85 one year prior), the proportion of them posting public UP/PO content increased (53% vs 47% one year prior). CONCLUSIONS Most urologists who recently entered practice continue to have public Facebook profiles, and about half of these contain unprofessional content. Amidst a steady rise in users identifying as urologists online, the majority now have public UP/PO content, raising concern about their professional identities and public perceptions of the specialty. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e694 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Max Schmidt-Bowman More articles by this author Kevin Koo More articles by this author Zita Ficko More articles by this author E. Ann Gormley More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...