MP51-07 TEACHING COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENT?

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Training & Skills Assessment I1 Apr 2017MP51-07 TEACHING COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENT? Jorge Whitley, Geolani Dy, Marcy Rosenbaum, Byron Joyner, and Kathleen Kieran Jorge WhitleyJorge Whitley More articles by this author , Geolani DyGeolani Dy More articles by this author , Marcy RosenbaumMarcy Rosenbaum More articles by this author , Byron JoynerByron Joyner More articles by this author , and Kathleen KieranKathleen Kieran More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.1616AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Postgraduate medical education has historically focused on the acquisition of didactic knowledge and technical skills, with less overt emphasis on the development of interpersonal and communication skills. Recent emphasis on patient satisfaction and performance-based initiatives has made this third dimension of medical training increasingly relevant. To date, there have been no studies on how communication skills are taught or evaluated in surgical specialties, including urology. We undertook this study to describe the current state of communication skill teaching in ACGME-accredited urology training programs in the United States. METHODS We surveyed 126 urology training programs via email and follow up phone calls, asking for an assessment of attending and resident communication skills as well as a description of how communication skills were taught in each program, and whether communication skills were evaluated (formally or informally) during interviews of prospective residents. RESULTS 48 programs (38.1%) completed the survey. All program leaders characterized attending communication skills as at least “adequate,” with most characterizing attendings as having “excellent” (52.2%) or “outstanding” (13.0%) communication skills. Most program leaders characterized residents as having “excellent” (50%) or “outstanding” (6.5%) communication skills, although 2.2% characterized residents as having “poor” communication skills. Only 10 (20.8%) programs had formal curricula to teach communication skills to residents. Resident observation of attendings (43/48=89.6%), faculty observation of residents (34/48=70.8%), and resident observation of other residents (29/48=60.4%) were cited as the most common ways for residents to learn communication skills. A minority of programs used dedicated didactic time (22/48=45.8%) or simulation (17/48=35.4%); formal feedback was provided to learners in only 5 (10.4%) programs. Prospective residents were evaluated on communication skills during the interview day either formally (6.4%) or informally (76.6%) by most programs. CONCLUSIONS The importance of good communication skills in urology residents is acknowledged by the high proportion of programs that assess interpersonal skills during the resident selection process. However, comprehensive formal communication skills training during urology residency is lacking. These findings may be helpful to urology program directors wishing to augment their contemporary approach to communication skills teaching for their residents. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e696 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Jorge Whitley More articles by this author Geolani Dy More articles by this author Marcy Rosenbaum More articles by this author Byron Joyner More articles by this author Kathleen Kieran More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...