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.

A Comparative Review of Oral Board Delivery Across Procedural Disciplines.

OBJECTIVE: Despite its ubiquity in the certification process among surgical specialties, there is little data regarding oral board delivery across various procedural fields. In this study we sought to determine the specifics of oral board exam administration across surgical disciplines with the goal of highlighting common practices, differences, and areas of innovation. This comparative analysis might further serve to identify unifying principles that undergird the oral board examination process across specialties. DESIGN: A standardized questionnaire was developed that included domains of exam structure/administration, content development, exam prerequisites, information about examiners, scoring, pass/failure rates, and emerging technologies. Between December 2022 and February 2023 structured interviews were conducted to discuss specifics of various oral board exams. Interview answers were compared between various specialties to extrapolate themes and to highlight innovative or emerging techniques among individual boards. SETTING: Interviews were conducted virtually. PARTICIPANTS: Executive members of 9 procedural medical boards including anesthesiology, neurosurgery, obstetrics, and gynecology, ophthalmology, orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, plastic surgery, general surgery, and urology RESULTS: Common themes include assessment of pre-, intra- and postoperative care; all testing involved candidate examination by multiple examiners and psychometricians were used by all organizations. Important differences included virtual versus in person administration (3 out of 9), inclusion and discussion of candidates' case logs as part of the exam (4 out of 9), formal assessment of professionalism (4 out of 9), and inclusion of an objective structured clinical examination (2 out of 9). CONCLUSIONS: While there are common themes and practices in the oral board delivery process between various surgical fields, and important differences continue to exist. Ongoing efforts to standardize exam administration and determine best practices are needed to ensure oral board exams continue to effectively establish that candidates meet the qualifications required for board certification.

Gender-based Disparity Exists in the Surgical Experience of Female and Male Urology Residents.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a discrepancy exists in the number and type of cases logged between female and male urology residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ACGME case log data from 13 urology residency programs was collected from 2007 to 2020. The number and type of cases for each resident were recorded and correlated with resident gender and year of graduation. The median, 25th and 75th percentiles number of cases were calculated by gender, and then compared between female and male residents using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: A total of 473 residents were included in the study, 100 (21%) were female. Female residents completed significantly fewer cases, 2174, compared to male residents, 2273 (P = .038). Analysis by case type revealed male residents completed significantly more general urology (526 vs 571, P = .011) and oncology cases (261 vs 280, P = .026). Additionally, female residents had a 1.3-fold increased odds of logging a case in the assistant role than male residents (95% confidence interval: 1.27-1.34, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Gender-based disparity exists within the urology training of female and male residents. Male residents logged nearly 100 more cases than female residents over 4years, with significant differences in certain case subtypes and resident roles. The ACGME works to provide an equal training environment for all residents. Addressing this finding within individual training programs is critical.

Resident Remediation: A National Survey of Urology Program Directors.

OBJECTIVES: To describe formal remediation rates and processes in urology training programs nationally. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a cross-sectional study by surveying program directors (PDs) through the Society of Academic Urologists. Formal remediation was defined as the process initiated when resident competency deficiencies were significant enough to necessitate documentation and notification of the Graduate Medical Education (GME) office. The primary outcome was the prevalence of urology programs that initiated formal remediation over the past 5 years. Secondary outcomes included reported competency deficiencies and formal remediation processes. RESULTS: Across 148 institutions, 73 (49%) PDs responded to the survey. The majority of PDs (67%, 49/73) stated that at least 1 resident underwent formal remediation over the last 5 years (median 1). "Professionalism" and "Interpersonal and Communication Skills" were the most common competency deficiencies that prompted formal remediation, whereas "Technical Skill" was the least common. While the majority of respondents notified the GME office of residents undergoing remediation, formal remediation plans varied from faculty coaching and mentorship (80%, 39/49) to simulation training (10%, 5/49). Absence of documented faculty feedback on poor performance was the most commonly cited barrier to formal remediation. The majority of PDs reported documentation in a resident's file (81%, 59/73); however, remediation processes differed with only half of PDs reporting that GME offices were routinely involved in creating and overseeing corrective action plans (56%, 41/73). Over the study period, 15% (11/73) of PDs did not promote a resident to the next year of training, and 23% (17/73) of PDs stated "Yes" to graduating a resident who they would not trust to care for a loved one. CONCLUSIONS: Formal remediation among urology residency programs is common, and processes vary across institutions. The most common competency areas prompting remediation were "Professionalism" and "Interpersonal and Communication Skills." Future research should address developing resources to facilitate resident remediation.

Practice Readiness? Trends in Chief Resident Year Training Experience Across 13 Residency Programs.

INTRODUCTION: Urology residency prepares trainees for independent practice. The optimal operative chief resident year experience to prepare for practice is undefined. We analyzed the temporal arc of cases residents complete during their residency compared to their chief year in a multi-institutional cohort. METHODS: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs of graduating residents from 2010 to 2022 from participating urology residency programs were aggregated. Resident data for 5 categorized index procedures were recorded: (1) general urology, (2) endourology, (3) reconstructive urology, (4) urologic oncology, and (5) pediatric urology. Interactions were tested between the trends for total case exposure in residency training relative to the chief resident year. RESULTS: From a sample of 479 resident graduates, a total of 1,287,433 total cases were logged, including 375,703 during the chief year (29%). Urologic oncology cases had the highest median percentage completed during chief year (56%) followed by reconstructive urology (27%), general urology (24%), endourology (17%), and pediatric urology (2%). Across the study period, all categories of cases had a downward trend in median percentage completed during chief year except for urologic oncology. However, only trends in general urology (slope of -0.68, P = .013) and endourology (slope of -1.71, P ≤ .001) were significant. CONCLUSIONS: Over 50% of cases completed by chief residents are urologic oncology procedures. Current declining trends indicate that residents are being exposed to proportionally fewer general urology and endourology cases during their chief year prior to entering independent practice.

The impact of procedural activities on musculoskeletal pain experienced by pregnant surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Two-thirds of surgeons report work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMD). There is limited data on WRMD symptoms experienced by pregnant surgeons. METHODS: We distributed an electronic survey via personal contacts to attending and trainee surgeons across six academic institutions to assess the impact of procedural activities and surgical ergonomics (SE) on WRMD symptoms during pregnancy. RESULTS: Fifty-three respondents were currently or had been pregnant while clinically active, representing 93 total pregnancies. 94.7% reported that symptoms were exacerbated by workplace activities during pregnancy and 13.2% took unplanned time off work as a result. Beyond 24 weeks of pregnancy, 89.2% of respondents continued to operate/perform procedures, 81.7% worked >24-h shifts and 69.9% performed repetitive lifting >50 pounds. No respondents were aware of any institutional pregnancy-specific SE policies. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural activities can exacerbate pain symptoms for the pregnant surgeon. SE best practices during pregnancy warrant further attention.

The State of Urotrauma Education Among Residency Programs in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Management of urotrauma is a crucial part of a urologist's knowledge and training. We therefore sought to understand the state of urotrauma education in the United States. RECENT FINDINGS: Using themes of "Urotrauma" and "Education," we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching for studies in MEDLINE, all Cochrane libraries, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Scopus, and Web of Science through May 2023. The primary outcome was the pooled rate of urology trainee and program director attitudes toward urotrauma education. Secondary outcomes involved a descriptive summary of existing urotrauma curricula and an assessment of factors affecting urotrauma exposure. Of 12,230 unique records, 11 studies met the final eligibility criteria, and we included 2 in the meta-analysis. The majority of trainees and program directors reported having level 1 trauma center rotations (range 88-89%) and considered urotrauma exposure as an important aspect of residency education (83%, 95% CI 76-88%). Despite possible increases in trainee exposure to Society of Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons (GURS) faculty over the preceding decade, nearly a third of trainees and program directors currently felt there remained inadequate exposure to urotrauma during training (32%, 95% CI 19-46%). Factors affecting urotrauma education include the limited exposure to GURS-trained faculty and clinical factors such as case infrequency and non-operative trauma management. Urology resident exposure to urotrauma is inadequate in many training programs, underscoring the potential value of developing a standardized curriculum to improve urotrauma education for trainees. Further investigation is needed to characterize this issue and to understand how it impacts trainee practice readiness.

Longitudinal Changes in the Operative Experience for Junior Urology Residents.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate longitudinal trends in surgical case volume among junior urology residents. There is growing perception that urology residents are not prepared for independent practice, which may be linked to decreased exposure to major cases early in residency. METHODS: Retrospective review of deidentified case logs from urology residency graduates from 12 academic medical centers in the United States from 2010 to 2017. The primary outcome was the change in major case volume for first-year urology (URO1) residents (after surgery internship), measured using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: A total of 391,399 total cases were logged by 244 residency graduates. Residents performed a median of 509 major cases, 487 minor cases, and 503 endoscopic cases. From 2010 to 2017, the median number of major cases performed by URO1 residents decreased from 64 to 49 (annual incidence rate ratio 0.90, P < .001). This trend was limited to oncology cases, with no change in reconstructive or pediatric cases. The number of major cases decreased more for URO1 residents than for residents at other levels (P-values for interaction <.05). The median number of endoscopic cases performed by URO1 residents increased from 85 to 194 (annual incidence rate ratio 1.09, P < .001), which was also disproportionate to other levels of residency (P-values for interaction <.05). CONCLUSION: There has been a shift in case distribution among URO1 residents, with progressively less exposure to major cases and an increased focus on endoscopic surgery. Further investigation is needed to determine if this trend has implications on the surgical proficiency of residency graduates.

Engaging and Empowering Female Urologists in Academic Publishing and Peer Review.

N/A.

Current exposure to Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery faculty during urology residency.

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 1:10.8, and 7.4% of faculty at all residency programs were FPMRS certified. In comparison, faculty-to-resident ratios for other subspecialties were: 1:4.7 for pediatrics, 1:3.6 for oncology, 1:5.9 for minimally invasive surgery/endourology, 1:14.2 for trauma/reconstruction, and 1:11.8 for andrology or male sexual/reproductive health. The FPMRS faculty-to-resident ratio was 1:5.1 in programs with a urology-based FPMRS fellowship compared with 1:13.4 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.

Perceived Barriers Among Underrepresented and Historically Marginalized Medical Students Pursuing a Career in Urology.

OBJECTIVE: To assess perceived barriers to pursuing urology among medical students and to determine if marginalized groups identified greater challenges to entry. METHODS: The Deans of all New York medical schools were asked to disseminate a survey to their students. The survey collected demographic information to identify underrepresented minorities, students of low socioeconomic background, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual individuals. Students were asked to rate various survey items on a five-point Likert scale to determine which factors were perceived as barriers to applying to urology residency. Student t tests and ANOVA were used to compare mean Likert ratings between groups. RESULTS: A total of 256 students responded to the survey from 47% of medical institutions. Underrepresented minorities students cited lack of evident diversity within the field as a more significant barrier than counterparts (3.2 vs 2.7, P= .025). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual students perceived the lack of evident diversity within urology (3.1 vs 2.65, P = .01), exclusivity of the field (3.73 vs 3.29, P = .04), and fear that residency programs would have negative perceptions of them as students (3.0 vs 2.1, P < .0001) as substantial obstacles compared to peers. Students with childhood household incomes less than $40,000 cited socioeconomic concerns as a higher barrier compared to students with household incomes greater than $40,000 (3.2 vs 2.3, P = .001). CONCLUSION: Underrepresented and historically marginalized students perceive more significant barriers to pursuing urology than their peers. Urology training programs must continue to foster an inclusive environment to recruit prospective students from already marginalized groups.

Factors Related to Differential Treatment and Practice Limitations Amongst Urologists: A Report of American Urological Association 2021 Census Data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess rates of urologist-reported differential treatment in practice and practice limitations based on characteristics of urologists... identity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2021 AUA Census samples were linked with the United States (US) practicing urologist population file and assigned proper sample weighting to adjust for non-response bias. Responses to 2 questions of the Census related to (1) (negative) differential treatment experienced in practice and (2) limitations in patients/diagnoses seen in practice due to different aspects of respondent...s identity were evaluated. Responses were stratified based on self-reported gender (female vs male) and race (White vs non-White); results were compared using a chi-squared test. RESULTS: A total of 1742 urologists, representing 13,790 practicing US urologists through post-stratified weighting, responded to the Census. Overall, amongst those who answered the relevant questions, 16.3% reported having experienced differential treatment in practice due to their identity and 6.1% reported being limited in patients/diagnoses seen in practice due to their identity. Women were more likely than men to have experienced differential treatment (75.0% vs.ß10.2%, P.ß<.ß.001) and to be limited in patients/diagnoses seen in practice (27.0% vs.ß3.7%, P.ß<.ß.001). Similarly, non-White respondents were more likely than White urologists to both have experienced differential treatment (30.4% vs.ß14.1%, P.ß<.ß.001) and to be limited in patients/diagnoses seen in practice (12.8% vs.ß5.0%, P.ß<.ß.001). CONCLUSION: Female and non-White urologists are more likely to experience differential treatment in their practice and limitations in the scope of their practice. Further studies are needed to characterize these experiences and explore the etiologies of these differences.

The Impact of the Virtual Interview on Candidate Experience and Outcomes: Society of Academic Urologists National Survey of Interns Who Participated in the 2020-2021 Urology Match.

OBJECTIVE: To examine retrospective experiences with the virtual interview (VI) process among postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) urology residents who participated in the 2020-2021 American Urologic Association (AUA) Match cycle. METHODS: A 27-question survey created by a Society of Academic Urologists Taskforce on VI was distributed to PGY1 residents from 105 institutions between February 1, 2022 and March 7, 2022. The survey asked respondents to reflect on the VI process, cost concerns, and how experiences at their current program aligned with prior VI representation. RESULTS: A total of 116 PGY-1 residents completed the survey. The majority felt the VI represented the following domains well: (1) institution/program culture and strengths (74%), (2) representation of all faculty/disciplines (74%), (3) resident quality of life (62%), (4) personal fit (66%), (5) quality of surgical training and volume (63%), and (6) opportunities to meet residents (60%). Approximately 71% of respondents did not match at their home program or a program they visited in-person. Within this cohort, 13% agreed important aspects of their current program were not translated virtually, and they would not have prioritized the program had they been able to visit in-person. In total, 61% ranked programs they ordinarily might not have listed during an in-person interview season. Overall, 25% deemed financial costs a "very important" consideration during the VI process. CONCLUSION: The majority of PGY1 urology residents reported key components of their current program translated well from the VI process. This platform offers a method of overcoming conventional geographic and financial barriers associated with the in-person interview process.

Understanding the Urology Program Directors Perspective on the Current Resident Selection Process: The Society of Academic Urologists National Survey of Urology Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: The traditional residency selection process was altered dramatically by the SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. For the 2020-2021 application cycle in-person interviews were transitioned to the virtual format. What was thought to be a temporary transition has now become the new standard with continued endorsement from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Society of Academic Urologists (SAU) for virtual interviews (VI). We sought to assess the perceived efficacy and satisfaction of the VI format from the urology residency program director's (PDs) perspective. DESIGN: A designated SAU Taskforce on "Optimizing the Applicant Experience in the Virtual Interview Era" developed and refined a survey composed of 69 questions on VI and was distributed to all urology program directors (PD) of member institutions of the SAU. The survey focused on candidate selection, faculty preparation, and interview day logistics. PDs were also asked to reflect on the impact of VI on their match results, recruitment of underrepresented minorities and female gender, and what their preference would be for future applications cycles. PARTICIPANTS: Urology residency PDs (84.7% response rate) between January 13, 2022 - February 10, 2022 were included in the study. RESULTS: Most programs interviewed a total of 36 to 50 applicants (80%), with an average of 10 to 20 applicants per interview day. The top 3 ranked criteria for interview selection reported by urology PDs surveyed included letters of recommendation, clerkship grades, and USMLE Step 1 score. The most common areas of formal training for faculty interviewers were diversity, equity and inclusion (55%), implicit bias (66%), and review of the SAU guidelines on illegal questions (83%). Over half (61.4%) of PDs believed that they were able to accurately represent their training program through the virtual platform, while 51% felt that VI did not afford similar assessments of applicant as in-person interviews. Two-thirds of PDs believed the VI platform improve access for all applicants to attend interviews. Focusing on the impact of the VI platform for recruitment of underrepresented minorities (URM) and female gender applicants, 15% and 24% reported improved visibility respectively for their program, and 24% and 11% reported increased ability to interview URM and female gender applicants respectively. Overall, in-person interviews were reported to be preferred by 42%, and 51% of PDs desired VIs to be included in future years. CONCLUSIONS: PDs opinion and role of the VIs into the future is variable. Despite uniform agreement of cost savings and belief that VI platform improves access for all, only half of PDs expressed interest of the VI format being continued in some form. PDs note limitation of VI in the ability to comprehensively assess applicants as well as the in-person format. Many programs have begun to incorporate vital training in the areas of diversity equity and inclusion bias, and illegal questions. There is a role for continued development and research on ways to optimize virtual interviews.