MP66-16 CURRENT EXPOSURE TO FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY DURING UROLOGY RESIDENCY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP66-16 CURRENT EXPOSURE TO FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY DURING UROLOGY RESIDENCY Connie Wang, Ariana Smith, Gina Badalato, and Doreen Chung Connie WangConnie Wang More articles by this author , Ariana SmithAriana Smith More articles by this author , Gina BadalatoGina Badalato More articles by this author , and Doreen ChungDoreen Chung More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003329.16AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Historically, few urology programs have had Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) trained faculty. This analysis aimed to assess contemporary exposure to FPMRS faculty during residency training in the United States (US). METHODS: US urology residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) were identified from the American Urological Association’s (AUA) website and accredited, urology based FPMRS fellowships were identified by the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction. Number of faculty and residency positions per program were identified from AUA program profiles, if last modified within the past year, or manually extracted from program websites. Faculty with subspecialty fellowship training were identified from individual program websites. RESULTS: 9 programs (6%) were excluded from analysis due to incomplete information. Of 139 accredited residency programs assessed, 15 (10.8%) were affiliated with an accredited, urology based FPMRS fellowship. 41 (29.5%) programs had neither a FPMRS fellowship nor any FPMRS certified faculty. 7.4% of faculty at all programs were FPMRS certified. The national faculty to resident ratio was 1:0.8, whereas the national FPMRS faculty to resident ratio was 1:10.8. In comparison, national faculty to resident ratios for other subspecialties were: 1:4.7 for pediatrics, 1:3.6 for oncology, 1:5.9 for minimally invasive surgery/endourology, 1:14.2 for trauma/reconstruction, and 1:11.8 for andrology or male sexual/reproductive health (Table 1). Programs affiliated with a urology based FPMRS fellowship had a FPMRS faculty to resident ratio of 1:5.1 while programs not affiliated with a FPMRS fellowship had a FPMRS faculty to resident ratio of 1:13.4. CONCLUSIONS: 30% of US urology residency programs lack fellowship trained FPMRS faculty. Even when FPMRS faculty are on staff, the field is often underrepresented relative to other urologic subspecialties. Inadequate exposure to FPMRS cases and mentors during training may contribute to the shortage of urology residents who choose to specialize in FPMRS and may exacerbate the failure to meet growing FPMRS patient demands nationwide. The long-term effects of lower numbers of FPMRS faculty need further exploration. Source of Funding: N/A © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e940 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Connie Wang More articles by this author Ariana Smith More articles by this author Gina Badalato More articles by this author Doreen Chung More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...