Revitalizing Urologists' Role in Transplantation as a Novel Strategy to Address Surgeon Shortage: Results from a Cross-Sectional Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Urologists represent functional alternatives for transplant surgeons, but their involvement is minimal. Evaluating urologists' interests in transplant and identifying associated factors may help to determine whether recruitment of more urological providers is a viable strategy to address transplant surgeon shortages in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We emailed a 10-question survey to individuals pursuing urology in the United States and collected demographic data, education and training backgrounds, and preferences for proposed integrated residency programs and abbreviated transplant fellowships. We stratified respondents based on transplant interest (yes/no); we made comparisons by using t-tests for continuous variables and Fisher exact tests for categorical variables. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with interest in transplant surgery. RESULTS: Of 104 respondents, 98 were included in the final analysis, with 47% indicating a current or prior interest in transplantation. Male respondents were 3.7 times more likely than female respondents to be interested (odds ratio = 4.675; 95% CI, 1.411-15.495; P = .012). Participants aged <30 years were 93% less likely than older participants to be interested in transplantation (odds ratio = 0.071; 95% CI, 0.006-0.779; P = .03). International medical graduates reported higher enthusiasm for transplantation compared with US-trained counterparts (89% vs 42%), with a trend toward significance (P = .06). Nearly all (93%, 43/46) who expressed interest endorsed having an integrated training pathway. Only 70% (32/46) supported an abbreviated fellowship (<24 mo). Lifestyle concerns and insufficient exposure during residency were the most frequently cited reasons for lack of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with male and older urology trainees, female and younger urology trainees were less inclined to pursue transplant surgery. Nonetheless, urologists represent an untapped pool of transplant surgeons. Proposing an integrated training program for urologists and increasing exposure to transplantation during urology residency represent potential strategies to decrease transplant surgeon shortages.

Estimated prospects of demand and supply of urologists in Korea over the next 10 years.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to provide the basic data needed to estimate future urologist supply and demand by applying various statistical models related to healthcare utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from multiple sources, including the Yearbook of Health and Welfare Statistics, Korean Hospital Association, Korean Medical Association, and the Korean Urological Association, were used for supply estimation. Demand estimation incorporated data on both clinical and non-clinical urologists, along with future population estimates. In-and-out moves and demographic methods were employed for supply estimation, while the Bureau of Health Professions model was utilized for demand estimation. Supply estimation assumptions included fixed resident quotas, age-specific death rates, migration rates, and retirement age considerations. Demand estimation assumptions included combining clinical and nonclinical urologist demands, adjusting population size for age-related healthcare usage variations. Urologist productivity was determined by adjusting productivity levels to 100%, 90%, and 80% of the base year based on actual clinical practice volumes. RESULTS: Estimations of both demand and supply consistently indicate an oversupply of urologists until 2025, followed by an expected shortage by 2035 owing to increased deaths and retirements attributed to the aging urologist population. This shortage becomes more pronounced when employing more reliable models, such as logit or ARIMA (autoregressive integrated moving average), underscoring the growing need for urologists in the future. CONCLUSIONS: All estimation models estimated an oversupply of urologists until 2025, transitioning to a deficit due to reduced supply thereafter. However, considering potential unaccounted factors, greater effort is needed for accurate predictions and corresponding measures.

Assessment of the gender gap in urology industry payments: An Open Payments Program data analysis.

PURPOSE: The Open Payments Program (OPP), established in 2013 under the Sunshine Act, mandated medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers to submit records of financial incentives given to physicians for public availability. The study aims to characterize the gap in real general and real research payments between man and woman urologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample included all urologists in the United States who received at least one general or research payment in the OPP database from 2015 to 2021. Recipients were identified using the National Provider Identifier and National Downloadable File datasets. Payments were analyzed by geography, year, payment type, and years since graduation. Multivariable analysis on odds of being in above the median in terms of money received was done with gender as a covariate. This analysis was also completed for all academic urologists. RESULTS: There was a total of 15,980 urologists; 13.6% were woman, and 86.4% were man. Compared to man urologists, woman urologists were less likely to be in the top half of total payments received (odds ratio [OR] 0.62) when adjusted for other variables. When looking at academic urologists, 18.1% were woman and 81.9% were man. However, woman academic urologists were even less likely to be in the top 50% of payments received (OR 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to characterize the difference in industry payments between man and woman urologists. The results should be utilized to educate physicians and industry, in order to achieve equitable engagement and funding for woman urologists.

Complications: The Experience of the Urologic Surgeon.

INTRODUCTION: Most urologic surgeons will experience surgical complications during their career. These complications can traumatize the surgeon. A national survey of AUA members was conducted to better understand the impact of surgical complications on mental, emotional, and physical health. METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed to a random sample of 4528 AUA members (US urologists and trainees). Survey items were designed to identify the prevalence of surgical complications, and consequential mental, emotional, and physical impact on the surgeon. Also assessed was the support infrastructure available to urologists who experienced complications. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 467 urologists (10.3% response rate), 432 (95%) of whom reported having experienced a serious complication. The most common mental/emotional experiences were anxiety (85%), guilt/shame (81%), and grief/sadness/depression (71%). The most common physical symptoms reported were insomnia (62%), loss of appetite (23%), and headache (13%). Approximately 94% of respondents reported that they did not receive any counseling, and 69% reported not receiving any emotional support following the incident. Urologists reported that shame, lack of administrative time, fear, stigma, and guilt were barriers to seeking support. CONCLUSIONS: The overwhelming majority of urologists experience significant complications. These complications are associated with a high incidence of physical and emotional distress, and there is poor access to support. There is an opportunity for the AUA and other agencies to address barriers to seeking and accessing care for urologists who experience mental, emotional, and physical distress after experiencing surgical complications.

Variation in content discussed by specialty in consultations for clinically localized prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary consultations improve decisional conflict and guideline-concordant treatment for men with prostate cancer (PC), but differences in the content discussed by specialty during consultations are unknown. METHODS: We audiorecorded and transcribed 50 treatment consultations for localized PC across a multidisciplinary sample of urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. Conversation was coded for narrative content using an open coding approach, grouping similar topics into major content areas. The number of words devoted to each content area per consult was used as a proxy for time spent. Multivariable Poisson regression calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) for content-specific word count across specialties after adjustment for tumor risk and patient demographics. RESULTS: Coders identified 8 narrative content areas: overview of PC; medical history; baseline risk; cancer prognosis; competing risks; treatment options; physician recommendations; and shared decision making (SDM). In multivariable models, specialties significantly differed in proportion of time spent on treatment options, SDM, competing risks, and cancer prognosis. Urologists spent 1.8-fold more time discussing cancer prognosis than medical oncologists (IRR1.80, 95%CI:1.14-2.83) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.84, 95%CI:1.10-3.07). Urologists (IRR11.38, 95%CI:6.62-19.56) and medical oncologists (IRR10.60, 95%CI:6.01-18.72) spent over 10-fold more time discussing competing risks than radiation oncologists. Medical oncologists (IRR2.60, 95%CI:1.65-4.10) and radiation oncologists (IRR1.77, 95%CI:1.06-2.95) spent 2.6- and 1.8-fold more time on SDM than urologists, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Specialists focus on different content in PC consultations. Our results suggest that urologists should spend more time on SDM and radiation oncologists on competing risks. Our results also highlight the importance of medical oncologists in facilitating SDM.

Radiation exposure of urologists during endourological procedures: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Ionizing radiation is used daily during endourological procedures. Despite the dangers of both deterministic and stochastic effects of radiation, there is a lack of knowledge and awareness among urologists. This study reviewed the literature to identify the radiation exposure (RE) of urologists during endourological procedures. METHODS: A literature search of the Medline, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was conducted to collect articles related to the radiation dose to urologists during endourological procedures. A total of 1966 articles were screened. 21 publications met the inclusion criteria using the PRIMA standards. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, of which 14 were prospective. There was a large variation in the mean RE to the urologist between studies. PCNL had the highest RE to the urologist, especially in the prone position. RE to the eyes and hands was highest in prone PCNL, compared to supine PCNL. Wearing a thyroid shield and lead apron resulted in a reduction of RE ranging between 94.1 and 100%. Educational courses about the possible dangers of radiation decreased RE and increased awareness among endourologists. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review in the literature analyzing RE to urologists over a time period of more than four decades. Wearing protective garments such as lead glasses, a thyroid shield, and a lead apron are essential to protect the urologist from radiation. Educational courses on radiation should be encouraged to further reduce RE and increase awareness on the harmful effects of radiation, as the awareness of endourologists is currently very low.

Urologists' opinion on treating asymptomatic stones: Would we treat ourselves as we treat our patients? Survey from European Association of Urology, Young Academic Urologists, Endourology and Urolithiasis working party.

Background/aim: Management of asymptomatic kidney stones is an ongoing debate with follow-up and treatment guidelines based on low-level evidence. Our aim was to evaluate current management of asymptomatic urinary stones. Materials and methods: A 70-question survey was designed in collaboration with European Association of Urology, Young Academic Urologists, Section of Uro-Technology and Section of Urolithiasis groups and distributed. Responders filled out hypothetical scenarios from 2 perspectives, either as treating physicians, or as patients themselves. Results: A total of 212 (40.01%) responses were obtained. Median responder age was 39 years. 75% of responders were interested in "urolithiasis". 82.5% had never experienced a renal colic, 89.6% had never undergone urolithiasis treatment.Overall, as the kidney stone scenarios got more complicated, the invasiveness of the treatment preference increased. As "the physician", responders preferred the conservative option in all situations more than they would choose as "the patient". For ureteral stones, conservative approach was most preferred for small stones and ureteroscopy became more preferred as the stone size increased.For smaller kidney stones, the most preferred follow-up schedule was 4-6 monthly, whereas for larger and complicated stones it was 0-3 monthly from both perspectives respectively. For all ureteral stone scenarios, 0-4 weekly follow-up was mostly preferred.Interestingly, having had a renal colic was an independent predictor of an interventional approach, whereas having had an intervention was an independent predictor of a conservative approach. Conclusion: Current treatment and follow-up patterns of asymptomatic urinary stones are in agreement with international guidelines on symptomatic stones.In most of the urolithiasis situations urologists chose a conservative approach for their patients compared to what they would prefer for themselves. Conversely, urologists, in the scenarios as "the patient", would like to have a more frequent follow-up schedule for their stones compared to how they would follow-up their patients.

Utilization and Timing of Cystoscopy for Hematuria Evaluation by Advanced Practice Providers and Urologists.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize differences between urologists and advanced practice providers (APPs) in the utilization of cystoscopy for hematuria. METHODS: We identified patients initially evaluated for hematuria by a urologist or urology APP between 2015 and 2020 in the MarketScan Research Databases. We determined whether they received a cystoscopy within 6 months of their urology visit and the number of days until cystoscopy. We used multivariable regression to analyze the association between these outcomes and whether the urology clinician was an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN), physician assistant (PA), or urologist. RESULTS: We identified 34,470 patients with microscopic hematuria and 17,328 patients with gross hematuria. Patients evaluated by urologists more often received a same-day cystoscopy than those evaluated by APPs (13% vs 5.8%). The odds that patients evaluated for microscopic and gross hematuria received a cystoscopy were 46.2% and 26.2% lower, respectively, if they were evaluated by an APRN vs a urologist. Patients seeing an APRN for microscopic and gross hematuria also waited approximately 7 and 14 days longer for their cystoscopy, respectively. No differences were observed for patients evaluated by PAs vs urologists. CONCLUSION: Patients evaluated for hematuria by an APRN were less likely to receive a cystoscopy and had a longer wait until the procedure compared to those evaluated by a urologist; however, no differences were observed between PAs and urologists. Better understanding APP integration into urology clinics is warranted.

An Analysis of American Urological Association Census Trends: Earlier Planned Retirement and Practice Pattern Changes May Exacerbate the Urology Workforce Shortage.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how changes in planned retirement age, practice setting, and physician productivity may impact the workforce shortage in urology. METHODS: We compared data between the 2015 and 2022 American Urological Association census, a specialty-wide annual survey which collects data on demographics, practice patterns, and procedures from a representative sample of U.S. urologists. Workforce productivity was measured by the self-reported number of hours worked per week and patients seen per week. A novel formula was developed to demonstrate how planned retirement age and productivity impact the workforce's production capacity. RESULTS: The total number of practicing urologists increased during the period from 2015 to 2022 (11,990 to 13,976), while the mean age of practicing urologists decreased slightly (55.0 to 54.5years; P < .002). During this period, the mean planned age of retirement for all urologists decreased from 68.9years to 67.7 (P < .001). Urologists in solo practice had a significantly higher planned age of retirement at 71.9years (P < .001) as compared to all other practice models. The number of patients seen per week for all urologists decreased from 78.7 to 72.9 (P < .001). The amount of hours worked per week remained relatively constant between the study periods. The maximum possible number of patients seen by the workforce prior to retirement increased by only 2.4% during the study interval. CONCLUSION: Though the U.S. urology workforce is growing and the mean age is decreasing, decreases in planned retirement age and productivity may offset these gains and intensify the physician shortage for U.S. urologists.

Occupational Radiation Exposure During Pregnancy: A Survey of Urologists on Perception, Experience, and Practice Patterns.

Introduction: The field of urology is predominantly male; however, there has been an increasing number of women in the workforce. Peak reproductive years frequently overlap with residency training and early attending career timelines. Exposure to ionizing radiation is a common occupational hazard in many procedural specialties. The use of radiation, for example, in interventional cardiology and interventional radiology, has shown little adjustments in practice patterns, with no adverse outcomes reported among pregnant physicians in their fields in the setting of appropriate radiation safety measures. The impact of radiation exposure during pregnancy for urologists is largely unknown. Our objective was to determine attitudes and practices of urologists related to radiation exposure and to characterize the experience of urologists who have previously been pregnant. Methods: An anonymous online survey was distributed through relevant society membership bases, which included the Endourological Society and the Society for Women in Urology, and social media. Demographics, practice patterns, and changes to practice patterns were recorded for respondents. Statistical analysis was performed in R studio. Results: There were 384 respondents, 255 of whom identified as women. Of these, 164 had been previously pregnant. Female respondents were younger, completed training more recently, and were more likely to have adjusted their caseload due to radiation concerns compared with their male counterparts. Of women who had been pregnant, few had access to policies for who to notify (19%), policies for safety precautions (22%), custom-fitted lead (35%), and maternity lead (20%). Most women (66%) relied on their own research for guidance on radiation safety during pregnancy, while some (41%) also used information from colleagues or mentors. Forty-six percent of women would have taken greater precautions during pregnancy than they did. Conclusions: Access to the appropriate tools to safely navigate pregnancy is inconsistent among practicing urologists. Evidence-based guidelines are needed to better empower pregnant urologists.

Online Tools to Decrease Out-of-Pocket Prescription Costs for Patients: A Practical Guide for Urologists.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who seek urologic care have recently reported a high degree of financial toxicity from prescription medications, including management for nephrolithiasis, urinary incontinence, and urological oncology. Estimating out-of-pocket costs can be challenging for urologists in the US because of variable insurance coverage, local pharmacy distributions, and complicated prescription pricing schemes. This article discusses resources that urologists can adopt into their practice and share with patients to help lower out-of-pocket spending for prescription medications. METHODS: We identify 4 online tools that are designed to direct patients toward more affordable prescription medication options: the Medicare Part D Plan Finder, GoodRx, Amazon, and the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. A brief historical overview and summary for patients and clinicians are provided for each online resource. A patient-centered framework is provided to help navigate these 4 available tools in clinic. RESULTS: Among the 4 tools we identify, there are multiples tradeoffs to consider as financial savings and features can vary. First, patients insured by Medicare should explore the Part D Plan Finder each year to compare drug plans. Second, patients who need to urgently refill a prescription at a local pharmacy should visit GoodRx. Third, patients who are prescribed recurrent generic prescriptions for chronic conditions can utilize the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. Finally, patients who are prescribed 3 or more chronic medications can benefit from subscribing to Amazon RxPass. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription medications for urologic conditions can be expensive. This article includes 4 online resources that can help patients access medications at their most affordable costs. Urologists can provide this framework to their patients to help support lowering out-of-pocket drug costs.

The Ideal Neurogenic Bladder Management Team.

This article discusses the ideal neurogenic bladder management team for patients who have neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD). It emphasizes the importance of a diverse team, including urologists, physiatrists, neurologist and others, working collaboratively to prevent complications and enhance patient outcomes. Owing to the unique nuances of the various neurologic conditions and patterns of NLUTD dysfunction, the roles of different specialists in the interdisciplinary team are outlined. This article describes 3 team models: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary, highlighting the benefits of collaborative approaches.

Young urologists and kidney transplantation training: A survey designed by the French Transplantation Committee of the French Association of Urology (CTAFU) and the French Association of Urologists in training (AFUF).

OBJECTIVE: In France, kidney transplantations (KT) are mainly performed by urologist. Young urologists and residents are involved in this activity mostly performed in emergency. How do they feel about KT training? Is KT an attractive part of the urologist activity? METHODS: This survey has been designed in the form of a questionnaire by the French Committee of Kidney Transplantation (CTAFU) and the French Association of Urologists in training (AFUF). It has been sent by e-mail to all the AFUF members. Interest in KT and performance of the training were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 126 members filed the form. Among the residents, 51.5% feel secure to perform KT at the end of their residency. KT is considered as an interesting surgery for 92.1% of the participants: 76.5% are willing to get involved in KT during their residency/fellowship. Among the participants, 44% are willing to continue a long-term involvement. Among the residents, 65.9% consider their practical training insufficient: 56.8% have been supervised for a KT performance during their residency and 86% declare a lack of practical training and had a patient-based learning. Among the residents, 92.1% declare an insufficient theorical training. Among the residents, 33.3% say the schedules of transplantation limit their interest in KT. Among the participants, 34.4% receive a transplant bonus in addition to the usual on-call salary. CONCLUSION: Young urologists wish to continue their involvement in KT activity, but improved theoretical and practical training are essential. In addition, the conditions under which this activity is performed and remunerated are a matter of concern.

Management of Anterior Urethral Stricture: A Survey of Contemporary Practice of Iranian Urologists.

PURPOSE: To evaluate Iranian urologists' approach to urethral stricture and assess how often they select open urethroplasty over minimally invasive procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study was conducted via www. SURVEY: porsline.ir among members of the Iranian urologists' community. The urologists were contacted via email and social media applications (e.g., WhatsApp, Telegram), and data, including their demographic information and years of practice, as well as questions related to their attitude towards the management of urethral stricture, were collected. RESULTS: A total number of 376 patients were included in the current survey. The specialty of reconstructive urology was selected by less than 2% (n=5) as their field of interest. Only 6.64% (n=25) of the urologists stated that they received adequate training for management of urethral stricture. Only about 5% (n=19), believed that according to scientific resources, chose open urethroplasty as the initial management. Almost 94% (n=353) did not perform any urethroplasties during the past year and about 0.2% (n=2) performed more than 20 open urethroplasties. For diagnosing urethral stricture, almost 99% of them chose RUG+VCUG, 72% chose urethrocystoscopy, and 69% chose uroflowmetry in the third place. For evaluation of urethroplasty postoperative outcomes, 76% (n=269) used RUG+VCUG, 15% (n=56) used Rigid Cystoscopy, and 8% (n=29) used Flexible Cystoscopy, Conclusion: Iranian urologists prefer minimally invasive procedures for treating urethral stricture, similar to other countries. This lack of urologists' interest in open urethroplasty is greatly due to poor training during the residency years and little experience with urethral strictures. Therefore, further considerations in order to improve urologists' knowledge and expertise for management of urethral stricture is recommended.

Understanding Clinician Preferences for Treatment Attributes in Oncology: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Oncologists' and Urologists' Preferences for First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced/Unresectable Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma in Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Prior discrete choice experiments (DCE) in oncology found that, on average, clinicians rank survival as the most important treatment attribute. We investigate heterogeneity in clinician preferences within the context of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK. METHODS: The online DCE included 12 treatment choice tasks, each comparing two hypothetical therapy profiles defined by treatment attributes: grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), induction and maintenance administration schedules, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). We used a random parameters logit model to estimate attribute relative importance (RI) (0-100%) and generate preference shares for four treatment profiles. Results were stratified by country. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated by latent class analysis. RESULTS: In August and September 2022, 498 clinicians (343 oncologists and 155 urologists) completed the DCE. OS had the strongest influence on clinicians' preferences [RI = 62%; range, 51.6% (Germany) to 63.7% (Spain)] followed by frequency of grade 3/4 TRAEs (RI = 27%). Among treatment profiles, the chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy profile had the largest preference share [51%; range, 38% (Italy) to 56% (UK)]. Four latent classes of clinicians were identified (N = 469), with different treatment profile preferences: survival class (30.1%), trade-off class (22.4%), no strong preference class (40.9%), and aggressive treatment class (6.6%). OS was not the most important attribute for 30.0% of clinicians. CONCLUSION: While average sample results were consistent with those of prior DCEs, this study found heterogeneity in clinician preferences within and across countries, highlighting the diversity in clinician decision making in oncology.

Online decision aid for patients with prostate cancer evaluated by 11 290 patients and 91 urologists in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the nationwide online decision aid 'Entscheidungshilfe Prostatakrebs' (established in 2016, >11.000 users and 60 new users/week) for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), from the perspective of patients and urologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To provide personalised information, the tool collects most of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set, personal preferences, psychological features, and a validated rating of the tool. To evaluate urologists' opinions, we developed a structured two-page questionnaire. All data were collected anonymously. RESULTS: From June 2016 to December 2020, 11 290 patients used the PCa decision aid. Their median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 67 (61-72) years. The median (IQR) time from initial diagnosis to using the tool was 4 (3-7) weeks. In all, 87.7% of users reported high satisfaction. In a multivariable model, predictors for considering observation were higher knowledge, using the decision aid alone, lower oncological risk, normal erectile function, and respective personal preferences. Of 194 urologists, 91 (47%) had implemented the decision aid in their clinical practice. The urologists' mean (SD) satisfaction score (1 'very good'; 6 'unsatisfactory') with it was 1.45 (0.55), and 92% recommended it. Half of the urologists reported time savings. CONCLUSION: Patients and urologists report a very high level of acceptance and satisfaction with this online tool. It offers advantages in shared decision-making and time efficiency. The usage of the decision aid might improve the adoption of active surveillance and watchful waiting when indicated.