Linden-Castro E, Pelayo-Nieto M, Ramírez-Galindo I, Guzmán-Hernández F, Catalán-Quinto G, Rodríguez-Covarrubias F, Morales-Covarrubias J, Cortez-Betancourt R

Language: Spanish
References: 5
Page: 339-344
PDF size: 166.24 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess and identify from the resident’s perspective the current state of the urology residency training in the surgical, research, affective domain and its working future. Material and Methods: We performed an anonymous survey of 98 urology residents during 2014. The survey included 62 questions and assesses the surgical, the clinical research, and the affective domain, and also its working future. Results: We reviewed a total of 98 surveys, average age 29 years, 92% men and 8% women. The scholarship average was 12,000-14,000 pesos. Most of them have had at least one research work in a national congress, but not in an international one. Less than 10% has published papers in PubMed, although most consider clinical research as mandatory in their urology training programs. Most residents consider their training in laparoscopy to be inadequate, but they consider the relationship between partners and teachers is adequate and most of them are satisfied with their program.

REFERENCES

1. Coffey DS. Training the urologic scientist-an endangered species. Urology. 2002;59:315-7.

2. Montie J, Faerber G, Schaeffer A, et al. Urology residency and research: round table discussion and plea for innovation. Urology. 2008;71:762-5; discussion 765-6.

3. Yang G, Zaid UB, Erickson BA, Blaschlko SD, Carroll PR, Breyen BN. Urology resident publication output and its relationship to future academic achievement. J Urol. 2011;185:642-6.

4. Freilich DA, Nguyen HT, Phillips JL. Factors influencing residents’ pursuit of urology fellowships. Urology. 2011;78:986-92.

5. Duchene DA, Moinzadeh A, Gill IS, Clayman RV, Winfield HN. Survey of residency training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. J Urol. 2006; 176:2158-66; discussion 2167.