You have accessJournal of UrologyImaging/Radiology: Uroradiology I1 Apr 20122048 DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A SINGLE-INSTITUTION GENITOURINARY ULTRASOUND COURSE AND THE IMPACT ON RESIDENT LEARNING AND RETENTION Alexander W. Pastuszak, Itamar Birnbaum, Thomas A. Supp'e, Colleen Kelly, Jessica Sheets, Michael Coburn, and Gilad E. Amiel Alexander W. PastuszakAlexander W. Pastuszak Houston, TX More articles by this author , Itamar BirnbaumItamar Birnbaum Houston, TX More articles by this author , Thomas A. Supp'eThomas A. Supp'e Houston, TX More articles by this author , Colleen KellyColleen Kelly Houston, TX More articles by this author , Jessica SheetsJessica Sheets Houston, TX More articles by this author , Michael CoburnMichael Coburn Houston, TX More articles by this author , and Gilad E. AmielGilad E. Amiel Houston, TX More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2212AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Currently available genitourinary (GU) ultrasound (US) courses incur significant expense to participants. Given the recent tightening of budgets, the accessibility of such courses to residents and health care professionals may be limited. We assessed the effects of a hands-on, single-institution GU US course with a small budget and at no cost to participants on learning and retention of basic principles of GU US. METHODS A hands-on GU US course highlighting renal, bladder, scrotal, and trans-rectal US (TRUS) was developed with an annual budget of $1000. The 4-hour course was taught to urology (GU) residents and medical students (MS's) over two 2-hour sessions. The first session consisted of a pre-test with subsequent introduction of the course syllabus, followed by hands-on small group (2-3 participants) instruction at 2 stations. A second session consisted of 2 hands-on instruction stations followed by a post-test. We accrued data for 2 years; during the first year, 22 residents and 23 MS controls participated, followed by 22 residents and 15 MS's for the second year, with 13 residents participating in both courses. Pre- and post-test scores were compared between residents and MS's and among residents present for both course iterations. RESULTS During the first course iteration, no differences between pre-test scores between residents and MS's were observed (mean±SD 49.4±13.4% and 49.0±13.6%, respectively, p=0.92). Both groups demonstrated improvement after taking the post-test, with approximately equal benefit within both groups (65.2±19.5% (residents, p<0.0001) and 69.9±14.2% (MS's, p<0.0001) p=0.74 for post-test scores between groups). Results of the second course iteration yielded no differences in pre-test scores between groups (49.8±14.8% (residents), 48.2±13.7% (MS's), p=0.66). An improvement was seen among the resident post-test scores (63.9±10.4%, p=0.02), with a trend towards improvement among the MS's (55.1±10.6%, p=0.07). Residents who participated in both course iterations demonstrated higher second pre-test scores the second time (mean increase 8.6±11.7%, p=0.02). However, no differences in post-test scores were observed between first- and second-time course participants (mean difference -2.7±14.0%, p=0.51). CONCLUSIONS Implementation of a cost-effective GU US course at the single institution level is feasible and results in learning and retention of relevant information. However, a written test may not reflect the hands-on teaching and accumulation of knowledge during the course. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e826 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Alexander W. Pastuszak Houston, TX More articles by this author Itamar Birnbaum Houston, TX More articles by this author Thomas A. Supp'e Houston, TX More articles by this author Colleen Kelly Houston, TX More articles by this author Jessica Sheets Houston, TX More articles by this author Michael Coburn Houston, TX More articles by this author Gilad E. Amiel Houston, TX More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...