You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Quality Improvement & Patient Safety II1 Apr 2017MP92-16 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FOR UROLOGISTS: CURRICULAR KEYS FOR EDUCATING RESIDENTS (QUICKER) Eugene Cone, Jonathan Bergman, Tannaz Moin, Ashley Wietsma, Arlene Fink, B Price Kerfoot, and Charles Scales Eugene ConeEugene Cone More articles by this author , Jonathan BergmanJonathan Bergman More articles by this author , Tannaz MoinTannaz Moin More articles by this author , Ashley WietsmaAshley Wietsma More articles by this author , Arlene FinkArlene Fink More articles by this author , B Price KerfootB Price Kerfoot More articles by this author , and Charles ScalesCharles Scales More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.2877AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The healthcare system increasingly links patient safety and explicit quality measures to health outcomes. In addition, under the aegis of the ACGME′s Next Accreditation System, urology residents must now receive training regarding quality improvement (QI). Competing demands of clinical care, other curricular topics, and lack of resources and faculty expertise pose challenges to QI educational programs. To develop content for a QI curriculum for urology residents, we identified 25 candidate topics. Our objective was to identify appropriateness of the topics using an expert panel. METHODS We used a modified Delphi approach to gather consensus among a panel of QI and urology education experts through a novel online interface (ExpertLens). We asked experts to anonymously rate 25 topics across 3 domains: importance, feasibility, and potential impact on patient care if residents received instruction on the topic. Potential ratings ranged from 1 to 9 (1 = of no importance; 9 = extremely important). In Round 1, panelists rated each topic. In Round 2, panelists viewed aggregate ratings and justified their own choices through an online discussion board. In Round 3, panelists provided their final ratings based on the online discussion. Twenty-four experts were initially recruited, and 16 ultimately participated in all three rounds. RESULTS Minimization of healthcare waste, use of high value care, and standardization of clinical processes scored the highest on importance and impact, while panelists felt that quality measurement tools (i.e., patient satisfaction measures, Physician Quality Reporting System) were less important to teach and unlikely to substantially improve patient care. Expert panelists clearly distinguish quality measurement (i.e. reporting systems) and quality improvement activities (Table). CONCLUSIONS These results broadly support a QI curriculum focused on methods to eliminate waste, standardize care pathways, and strengthen processes of urologic patient care. Educating residents about quality measurement and reporting may not meaningfully improve patient outcomes. Future research will assess methods to improve resident engagement in QI education. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e1233-e1234 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Eugene Cone More articles by this author Jonathan Bergman More articles by this author Tannaz Moin More articles by this author Ashley Wietsma More articles by this author Arlene Fink More articles by this author B Price Kerfoot More articles by this author Charles Scales More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...