A global snapshot of endourology residency training


Submitted: February 1, 2020
Accepted: April 1, 2020
Published: October 2, 2020
Abstract Views: 843
PDF: 416
Supplementary Files: 85
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

  • Asad Ullah Aslam U-merge Ltd. (Urology for emerging countries), London, UK; Dept. of Urology, Letterkenny University Hospital, Saolta Healthcare Group, Ireland.
  • Joseph Philipraj U-merge Ltd. (Urology for emerging countries), London, UK; Department of Urology, Mahatma Ghandi Medical College & Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth, Pondicherry, India.
  • Sayed Jaffrey U-merge Ltd. (Urology for emerging countries), London, UK; Dept. of Urology, University College Hospital, Galway Clinic and Bons Secours Hospital, Galway, Ireland.
  • Noor Buchholz U-merge Ltd. (Urology for emerging countries), London, United Kingdom.

Background: Urology has become more complex over the last decades with surgical sophisticated technologies such as endoscopy, laparoscopy and robotic surgery. As these minimally invasive methods gain popularity throughout the world, this has led in some countries to a serious training gap as compared to other countries, and between generations of surgeons within national training systems. There is a huge heterogeneity in urological training between countries, whether developed or developing. This paper attempts to shed some light onto global urological training, comparing a significant number of various national systems, and to outline global tendencies in urological training. It will enable interested readers to see where their own system stands in international comparison, and hopefully enable them to identify training needs to achieve global quality standards.
Materials and methods: This is a questionnaire-based assessment which was sent to 240 members of U-merge from 62 countries. In addition, there is ample literature on the requirements of structured training programs and assessments, and we have tried to briefly outline the key points in this paper.
Results: We received responses from 32 countries Urology residency training is hugely heterogenous between countries. Only 44% of nations use a structured training program with assessments. Others use the Halstedian apprenticeship approach. Notably, some developing countries do use modern teaching and assessment methods, whereas some developed countries still use the outmoded apprenticeship model. For the interested reader, results have been tabled in detail, and training systems described country by country.
Conclusions: Our results have shown a huge heterogeneity in quality urology training between countries and within continents. In systems without national structure of training, it can be assumed that such differences exist even between hospitals/ training institutions. There is no doubt in times of globalization with resident and doctor migration and exchanges that training needs structure and standardization. The still huge gap in developing countries to catch up and be able to afford latest surgical and learning technologies need to be addressed with the help of responsible outreach programs.


Campain NJ, Kailavasan M, Chlawe M, Gobeze AA, Teferi G, Lane R, Biyani CS. An Evaluation of the role of simulation training for teaching surgical skills in sub-saharan Africa. World J Surg. 2018, 42(4): 923-929. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4261-7

Ather MH, Siddiqui T. Urology training in the developing world: The trainer’s perspective. Arab J Urol, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2013.07.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2013.07.001

Anderson JT. Assessments and skills improvement for endoscopists. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016, 30(3): 453-471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2016.05.005

Sarikaya S, Meneses AD, Cacciamani GE, Rivas JG. Future of urology training. Arch Esp Urol. 2018, 71(1): 158-163.

Angulo JC, Figueroa C, Gomez R, Martins F, Corrales JG, Secin F, Lopez-Secchi G, Leon A, Torrico M, Reis LO, Plata M, Stomayor M, Gutierrez-Aceves J. Current status of urological training in South America. Arch Esp Urol. 2018, 71(1): 23-33.

Carrion DM, Gomez Rivas J, Esperto F, Patruno G, Vasquez JL. Current status of urological training in Europe. Arch Esp Urol. 2018, 71(1): 11-17.

O’Sullivan KE, Byrne KS, Walsh TN. Basic surgical training in Ireland: the impact of operative experience, training, program allocation and mentorship on trainee satisfaction. Ir J Med Sci. 2013, 182(4): 687-692. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-013-0956-4

Struck JP, Cebulla A, Ralla B, Koenig J. Structured training curriculum for urological residents: chances and limits. Urologe A. 2019, 58(2): 109-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-018-0847-4

Naouar S, Binous MY, Braiek S, El Kamel R. Training of Tunisian future urologists: how to improve it. Tunis Med. 2018, 96(7): 401-404.

Soria F, Villacampa F, Serrano A, Moreno J, Rioja J, Sanchez FM. Training program in endourological surgery. Future perspectives. Arch Esp Urol. 71(1): 89-96.

Sarikaya S. Needs, realities and expectations for urology training: Questionnaire-based study. Arch Esp Urol. 2018, 71(1): 18-22.

Lovegrove CE, Abe T, Aydin A, Veneziano D, Sarica K, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Simulation training in upper tract endourology: myth or reality? Minerva Urol Nefrol, 2017, 69(6): 579-588.

NHS health education England: Training and development (urology) https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/doctors/roles-doctors/surgery/urology/training-and-development. Accessed 29.11.2019

Van der Poel H, Brinkman W, van Cleynenbreugel B, Kallidonis P, Stolzenburg JU, Litsiakos E, Ahmed K, Brunckhorst O, Khan MS, Do M, Ganzer R, Murphy DG, Van Rij S, Dundee PE, Dasgupta P. Training in minimally invasive surgery in urology: European Association of Urology/ International Consultation of Urological Diseases consultation. BJU Int. 2016, 117(3): 515-530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13320

Atesok K, Satava RM, Marsh JL, Hurwitz SR. Measuring surgical skills in simulation-based training. J Am Acad Orthp Surg. 2017, 25(10): 665-672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00253

De Vries AH, van Luijk SJ, Scherpbier AJ, Hendrikx AJ, Koldewijn EL, Wagner C, Schout BM. High acceptability of a newly developed urological practical skills training program. BMC Urol. 2015, 15(4): 93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-015-0084-8

Siau K, Dunckley P, Valori R, Feeney M, Hawkes ND, Anderson JT, Beales ILP, Wells C, Thomas-Gibson S, Johnson G, Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Changes in scoring of direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) forms and the impact on competence assessment. Endoscopy. 2018, 50(8): 770-778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0576-6667

Khanghahi M, Azar EF. Direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) evaluation method: Systematic review of evidence. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2018, 32(3): 45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14196/mjiri.32.45

Heidenreich A, Salem J, Paffenholz P, Pfister D. Interdisciplinary education in urology: innovations for better training. Urologe A. 2019, 58(8): 870-876. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-019-0958-6

Forbes N, Mohamed R, Raman M. Learning curve for endoscopy training: Is it all about numbers? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016, 30(3): 349-356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2016.04.003

Singh P, Aggarwal R, Zevin B, Grantcharov T, Darzi A. A global Delphi consensus study on defining and measuring quality in surgical training. J Am Coll Surg. 2014, 219(3): 346-353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.03.051

Sanfey H. Assessment of surgical training. Surgeon. 2014, 12(6): 350-356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2014.07.001

Wagner JP, Schroeder AD, Espinoza JC, Hiatt JR, Mellinger JD, Cusick RA, Fitzgibbons RJ, Campanelli G, Cavalli M, Roll S, Silva RA, Reinpold W, Telemaque LF, Matthews BD, Filipi CJ, Chen DC. Global outreach using a systematic, competency-based training paradigm for inguinal hernioplasty. JAMA Surg. 2017, 152(1): 66-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.3323

Sue GR, CovingtonWC, Chang J. The ReSurg global training program: a model for surgical training and capacity building in global reconstructive surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2018, 81(3): 250-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001513

Macpherson L, Collins M. Training responsibly to improve global surgical and anaesthesia capacity through institutional health partnerships: a case study. Trop Doct. 2017, 47(1): 73-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049475516665999

Joseph Philipraj, U-merge Ltd. (Urology for emerging countries), London, UK; Department of Urology, Mahatma Ghandi Medical College & Research Institute, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth, Pondicherry

Dr. S. Joseph Philipraj is a professor and postgraduate teacher presently working at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute/ Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth, University of Pondicherry, India. He graduated from St. John’s medical college Bangalore. His interest are in pediatric urology, reconstructive urology and endourology.  He is an examiner and medical educationist, and a FAIMER fellow. He authored >30 articles and is a reviewer for various national and international journals. He served as an official in the Association of Southern urologists and in the Urological Society of India.

Aslam, A. U., Philipraj, J., Jaffrey, S., & Buchholz, N. (2020). A global snapshot of endourology residency training. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 92(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.3.219

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations