Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Quality Improvement & Patient Safety I1 Apr 2017PD58-10 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS: PRELIMINARY SURVEY RESULTS OF PROGRAM DIRECTORS Justin Ziemba, Brian Matlaga, and Christopher Tessier Justin ZiembaJustin Ziemba More articles by this author , Brian MatlagaBrian Matlaga More articles by this author , and Christopher TessierChristopher Tessier More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.2625AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES One of the key physician competencies outlined in the Urology Milestone project is engagement in quality improvement (QI). Despite this mandate, little is known about how QI education and participation by residents is integrated into their training. Therefore, we performed a national survey of urology residency program directors (PD) in partnership with the Society of Academic Urologists (SAU). METHODS A 37-item electronic survey was developed to assess QI education, mentorship, and participation within a urology residency program. The survey was tested by an assistant program director and revised based on the feedback received. The survey was sent via email (11/1/2016) to all PD affiliated with the SAU (n=116; 94% of ACGME programs). Included in this analysis are only the completed responses received from the initial survey invitation at 1 week (censor date 11/7/2016). RESULTS A total of 22 respondents returned a completed survey for a response rate of 19% (22/116). Table 1 outlines program characteristics. All PD reported they participate in direct patient care, but 36% (8/22) also listed QI leader and educator as an additional role. Only 27% (6/22) of PD have received formal training in QI methodology, but 59% (13/22), 55% (12/22), and 32% (7/22) are directly involved in QI education, serve on a QI committee, and lead a QI team, respectively. Only 45% (10/22) of programs have a formal curriculum for teaching QI to residents with 90% (9/10) using didactic sessions focusing on Six Sigma (5/10; 50%) and root cause analysis (5/10; 50%) methodology. Table 2 lists PD attitudes towards QI education and participation for residents. The majority of PD (19/22; 86%) would like to see the American Urological Association develop a urology-oriented QI curriculum. CONCLUSIONS A minority of programs have QI education available for residents. However, PD agree that QI is an integral part of residency training, which should be promoted by our profession. Responses from additional PD will allow us to validate these initial trends. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e1131 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Justin Ziemba More articles by this author Brian Matlaga More articles by this author Christopher Tessier More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call