PD33-11 FACTORS INFORMING SELECTION AND EVALUATION FOR ENDOUROLOGICAL SOCIETY FELLOWSHIPS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research V (PD33)1 Sep 2021PD33-11 FACTORS INFORMING SELECTION AND EVALUATION FOR ENDOUROLOGICAL SOCIETY FELLOWSHIPS Kavita Gupta, Johnathan Khusid, Dara Lundon, Blair Gallante, Areeba Sadiq, William Atallah, and Mantu Gupta Kavita GuptaKavita Gupta More articles by this author , Johnathan KhusidJohnathan Khusid More articles by this author , Dara LundonDara Lundon More articles by this author , Blair GallanteBlair Gallante More articles by this author , Areeba SadiqAreeba Sadiq More articles by this author , William AtallahWilliam Atallah More articles by this author , and Mantu GuptaMantu Gupta More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002037.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Endourology Society (ES) fellowships are highly sought after and competitive, yet there have been no studies evaluating the attributes or benchmarks used for fellow selection. The goal of this study was to survey program directors across North America to identify the most important factors in selecting fellowship candidates and evaluating fellows during their training. METHODS: A survey was constructed using REDCAP software and distributed via email to program directors of fellowships registered with the ES. Fellowships in the ES include Endourology-Stone Disease (ESD) programs, robotic-laparoscopic surgery programs (MIS), and combination programs. The survey used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important) to rank the criteria for selecting and evaluating fellows. The survey captured program demographics such as geographic region, program type, and program duration. RESULTS: Of the 52 ES program directors, 34 (65%) responded. The respondents represented 8 (23.5%) ESD programs, 7 (20.6%) MIS programs, and 19 (55.9%) combination programs; of which 15 (44.1%) were one-year programs and 19 (55.9%) were two-year programs. Overall, the top 5 factors for candidate selection were perceived fit of the applicant within the program, perceived level of applicant interest, initial interview, personal emails from applicants’ advocates, and personal phone calls from applicants’ advocates. Advocacy on behalf of the applicant appeared to be especially important for two-year fellowships. Overall, the top 5 factors for the evaluation of fellows in training were patient interactions, professionalism, attitude/demeanor, operative skills, and interactions with ancillary staff. Research productivity was of greater importance for the evaluation of two-year fellows. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that applicants for ES fellowships should focus on the initial interview and recruiting supportive mentors to advocate for their applications, particularly for two-year programs. Furthermore, though program directors value both clinical skills and research productivity in evaluating fellows, research productivity was of greater importance for two-year programs. Further research into applicant perspectives on the fellowship application process is warranted. . Source of Funding: none © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e580-e581 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Kavita Gupta More articles by this author Johnathan Khusid More articles by this author Dara Lundon More articles by this author Blair Gallante More articles by this author Areeba Sadiq More articles by this author William Atallah More articles by this author Mantu Gupta More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...