Graduating resident and fellow readiness for general urologic practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey-based assessment of trainees and program directors.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to compare the perceived readiness of graduating urologic residents and fellows to program directors (PDs) in U.S.-based postgraduate training programs. Additionally, we set out to assess the impact of COVID-19 on postgraduation plans to pursue fellowship training. METHODS: Graduating residents, fellows, and PDs of accredited residency/fellowship programs in the U.S. were surveyed. The ranked preparedness of trainees to perform common urologic procedures was measured using a Likert scale from 1 (not comfortable) to 5 (fully proficient). The impact of COVID-19 was measured using a three-point Likert scale. Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis analyses were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: From 93 responders, 21 were residents, 19 were fellows, 24 were residency PDs, and 29 were fellowship PDs. The median levels of comfort for transurethral resection of the prostate, hydrocelectomy, vasectomy, and urethral sling were at or above (≥3) moderate for both PDs and trainees. PDs were more likely to report underperformance for hypospadias repair (60% vs. 39%), penile prosthesis implantation (39% vs. 26%), and orthotopic neobladder formation (57% vs. 18%) than the trainees. Fifty-three (57.0%) of the surveyors felt that COVID-19 did not impact the trainees' comfort in performing general urologic procedures. COVID-19 influenced trainees' decision to pursue a fellowship or opt to practice as general urologists (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests there may be a self-reported discrepancy between graduating trainees and their PDs regarding trainees' comfort levels performing general urologic procedures.

Evaluation of Educational Feedback in Urology Training: A Survey-Based Assessment of Trainees and Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate current satisfaction with the feedback provided during post-graduate urological training, including the quality and frequency of feedback, with participants consisting of both trainees and program directors. Additionally, we aimed to identify areas for future improvement in resident and fellow-level urological training. METHODS: Graduating residents, fellows, and program directors from accredited residency/fellowship programs in the United States were surveyed. A total of 575 surveys were sent out. Information on feedback frequency, quality, form, and satisfaction was collected using applicable multiple-choice responses and a five-point Likert scale. An open-ended question gathered suggestions for improving current feedback processes. A chi-square test of independence was used to compare the responses to individual questions. RESULTS: Ninety-two respondents answered our survey: 22 residents, 18 fellows, 25 residency program directors (PDs), and 27 fellowship PDs. The distribution of age, race, and gender categories was not significantly different between PDs and trainees. However, there was a significant difference in their subspecialties and American Urological Association (AUA) sections. The majority of fellowship PDs, residency PDs, fellows, and residents (88 total) reported verbal feedback as the predominant method within their practice. This was followed by written (68 total), electronic (54 total), and app-based feedback (19 total). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that there may be a need for ongoing improvement or standardization of feedback mechanisms in the field of urological training and highlights the perceived discrepancies between learners and educators.