Current Landscape of Surgical Assessment Models in Urology Residency Training.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Assessing trainees' surgical proficiency is an important aspect of urological surgical training. The current standard is the Urology Milestone Project, initially implemented in 2013. This evaluation is limited in that it contains only 3 questions on surgical competency per surgical modality with assessments occurring semi-annually without real-time operative feedback. However, since the Urology Milestones Project's inception a plethora of competency-based surgical assessment tools have been described. We aim to perform a comprehensive review of the literature of these available tools and analyze their strengths and weaknesses as a way of providing a repository of available assessment strategies for further development of a more comprehensive and standardized assessment tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of the primary literature was performed using key words such as "surgical assessment tools urology," "surgical assessment tools prostate," "bladder surgical assessment tools," "renal surgical assessment tools urology," and "surgical assessment tools urology task specific." Technical and nontechnical skill assessments were included. One reviewer identified and analyzed studies that published assessment tools for use in surgical and urological training. RESULTS: A total of 1,497 articles published between 1997-2022 were identified. Of these, 34 met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen (52.9%) were specialty nonspecific and 16 (47.1%) were specific for urological training. Of the 18 tools developed for general surgical principles, 12 (66.7%) had some form of validity, 9 (50.0%) were significantly reliable, and 2 (11.1%) were externally validated. Of the 16 tools developed specifically for use in urology training, 13 (81.3%) had some form of validity, 7 (43.8%) were significantly reliable, and none were externally validated. Of these 16 tools, 12 (75.0%) were procedure-specific and 4 (25.0%) were developed for general use in endourological procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical training is evolving toward a competency-based model, as evidenced by the increase in assessment tools created within the past 10 years. These instruments not only provide objective feedback to trainees, but also monitor progression. However, they are heterogeneous in construct and utilization. There remains a need for the adoption of a standardized, valid, and reliable tool, ie, both procedure-specific and generalizable across multiple procedures for use in urology training.