Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Current exposure to Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery faculty during urology residency.
Wang, Connie N; Su, Irene W; Smith, Ariana L; Badalato, Gina M; Chung, Doreen E.
Afiliación
  • Wang CN; Columbia University Irving Medical Center Department of Urology, New York, New York, USA.
  • Su IW; Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, USA.
  • Smith AL; University of Pennsylvania Health System Department of Urology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Badalato GM; Columbia University Irving Medical Center Department of Urology, New York, New York, USA.
  • Chung DE; Columbia University Irving Medical Center Department of Urology, New York, New York, USA.
Neurourol Urodyn ; 42(7): 1569-1573, 2023 09.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37449376
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Contemporary US resident exposure to Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) faculty during urology residency is unknown.

METHODS:

Accredited US urology residencies were identified through the American Urological Association (AUA). Accredited, urology-based FPMRS fellowships were identified through the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction. The number of faculty and residency positions were obtained from program AUA profiles if they were last modified within the current application cycle; this information was obtained from program websites if AUA profiles were outdated. Data on faculty fellowship training was manually extracted from program websites. A quality control cross-check of program and faculty training characteristics was performed through direct communication with 5% of programs.

RESULTS:

Of 139 accredited residency programs assessed, 10.8% were affiliated with an accredited, urology-based FPMRS fellowship. In total, 29.5% of residency programs, representing 25% of US urology residents, had neither a FPMRS fellowship nor any FPMRS certified faculty. The national FPMRS faculty-to-resident ratio was 110.8, and 7.4% of faculty at all residency programs were FPMRS certified. In comparison, faculty-to-resident ratios for other subspecialties were 14.7 for pediatrics, 13.6 for oncology, 15.9 for minimally invasive surgery/endourology, 114.2 for trauma/reconstruction, and 111.8 for andrology or male sexual/reproductive health. The FPMRS faculty-to-resident ratio was 15.1 in programs with a urology-based FPMRS fellowship compared with 113.4 in programs without a FPMRS fellowship.

CONCLUSIONS:

30% of US urology residency programs lack FPMRS trained faculty. Even when FPMRS faculty are on staff, the field is often underrepresented relative to other urologic subspecialties. Further studies are required to ascertain if inadequate exposure to FPMRS cases and mentors during training contribute to the shortage of urology residents who choose to specialize in FPMRS. This link has important implications for the current shortage of FPMRS providers.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Cirugía Plástica / Urología / Internado y Residencia Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Neurourol Urodyn Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Cirugía Plástica / Urología / Internado y Residencia Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Neurourol Urodyn Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article