Pd60-07 the Current State of Pediatric Urology Curriculum: Insights and Expectations From Program Directors Across the Usa

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research III (PD60)1 May 2024PD60-07 THE CURRENT STATE OF PEDIATRIC UROLOGY CURRICULUM: INSIGHTS AND EXPECTATIONS FROM PROGRAM DIRECTORS ACROSS THE USA Kerry Adler, Katie Yang, Pankti Kothari, Jacob Hartmann-Kenzler, Rachel Davis, Kate Kraft, and Michael Ernst Kerry AdlerKerry Adler , Katie YangKatie Yang , Pankti KothariPankti Kothari , Jacob Hartmann-KenzlerJacob Hartmann-Kenzler , Rachel DavisRachel Davis , Kate KraftKate Kraft , and Michael ErnstMichael Ernst View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009460.27205.df.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Pediatric urology is a core part of urology residency training and is tested on the in-service exam and parts I and II of the American Board of Urology exam. We wished to gain insight from Program Directors (PDs) into the current state of pediatric urology curriculum in US residencies and the expectations for proficiency of chief residents in multiple pediatric cases. The findings of this survey offer a unique perspective on the current state of pediatric urology education and potential areas for improvement in clinical training. METHODS: A survey was sent to all urology PDs via email. Questions included baseline demographic characteristics and program information; details about exposure to pediatric didactics, clinic, and cases; and expectations for resident performance based on the Zwisch scale (show/tell, active help, passive help, supervision only). Responses were collected anonymously and stored in REDCap. Data analysis was performed with chi-square analysis. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 143 PDs and we received responses from 47 PDs (33%). Almost all programs included a dedicated rotation in pediatrics; most commonly, rotations lasted <6 months, were performed at a standalone children's hospital, and were performed during the Uro-2 (30.9%), Uro-3 (27.2%), or Uro-4 (33.3%) years. Residents were exposed to a wide range of educational opportunities in pediatric urology (Table 1). A majority of PDs expected chief residents to achieve competency (at the level of passive help or supervision only) in 7/8 of the pediatric cases listed (Table 2). We did not find a significant relationship between years spent as a PD and expectations for chief resident proficiency (p=0.356). CONCLUSIONS: These responses suggest that pediatric urology curriculum is robust across most US urology programs. A dedicated pediatrics rotation is the norm, and when present there is an opportunity for involvement in pediatric didactics, clinic, and journal club. PDs expect graduating chief residents to be mostly independent in core pediatric urology cases. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1275 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Kerry Adler More articles by this author Katie Yang More articles by this author Pankti Kothari More articles by this author Jacob Hartmann-Kenzler More articles by this author Rachel Davis More articles by this author Kate Kraft More articles by this author Michael Ernst More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...