Mp54-01 Examining the Role of Urology Residency Dismissal on Representation in the Workforce

You have accessJournal of UrologyDiversity, Equity & Inclusion: Increasing Representation in Urology (MP54)1 May 2024MP54-01 EXAMINING THE ROLE OF UROLOGY RESIDENCY DISMISSAL ON REPRESENTATION IN THE WORKFORCE Efe Chantal Ghanney Simons, Serena Does, Samuel L. Washington, and Tracy M. Downs Efe Chantal Ghanney SimonsEfe Chantal Ghanney Simons , Serena DoesSerena Does , Samuel L. WashingtonSamuel L. Washington , and Tracy M. DownsTracy M. Downs View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008944.36895.9d.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: According to the 2022 American Urological Association (AUA) Census, the presence of Black urologists in our workforce has remained persistently low, most recently at 2.2%. Latinx/Hispanic urologists have seen a modest increase in representation, making up 4.9% of practicing urologists. As the US population becomes more racially and ethnically diverse, efforts have been made by training programs and pathway programs, such as Urology Unbound and PROSPECT, to increase access into the field of urology. Little is known about how attrition during training may contribute to low presence of under-represented in medicine (URiM) individuals in urology. The study aims to quantify attrition rates for urology trainees. METHODS: Data was obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges regarding urology residents and fellows for the academic year 2010-2011 to 2018-2019. The graduating trainees were stratified into URiM and non-URiM. Trainees who were dismissed or withdrew from urology but did not transfer to another specialty in medicine were also stratified by URiM status. URiM included anyone who identified as American-Indian, Alaskan-Native, Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latinx, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Rate of dismissal/withdrawal was calculated using the number of dismissed/withdrawn trainees and the number of graduating urology trainees. RESULTS: Attrition/Withdrawal rates ranged from 0-13% for URiM and 1-3% for non-URiM trainees. URiM Trainees withdrew or were dismissed from urology at higher rates than their non-URiM peers with the exception of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The rate of dismissal/withdrawal of URiM trainees exceeded the proportion of graduating trainees who identified as URiM in 2010-2011 and 2016-2017. In 2010-2011, the percentage of graduating trainees who were URiM was 7% and the proportion of URiM trainees who were dismissed or withdrawn was 11%. In 2016-2017, the percentage of graduating trainees who were URiM was 9% and the proportion of URiM trainees who were dismissed or withdrawn was 13%. CONCLUSIONS: URiM urology residents and fellows withdraw or are dismissed from urology training programs at higher rates than their non-URiM peers. Further studies would need to be conducted to evaluate factors associated with this loss from our field to improve representation of URiM in our workforce. Download PPT Source of Funding: David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Office of Medical Education © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e874 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Efe Chantal Ghanney Simons More articles by this author Serena Does More articles by this author Samuel L. Washington More articles by this author Tracy M. Downs More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...