Attitudes of GP trainees towards the training received in urology on the GP training scheme

LEARN: A multi-centre, cross-sectional evaluation of Urology teaching in UK medical schools

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the status of UK undergraduate urology teaching against the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Undergraduate Syllabus for Urology. Secondary objectives included evaluating the type and quantity of teaching provided, the reported performance rate of General Medical Council (GMC)-mandated urological procedures, and the proportion of undergraduates considering urology as a career.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

LEARN was a national multicentre cross-sectional study. Year 2 to Year 5 medical students and FY1 doctors were invited to complete a survey between 3rd October and 20th December 2020, retrospectively assessing the urology teaching received to date. Results are reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).

RESULTS

7,063/8,346 (84.6%) responses from all 39 UK medical schools were included; 1,127/7,063 (16.0%) were from Foundation Year (FY) 1 doctors, who reported that the most frequently taught topics in undergraduate training were on urinary tract infection (96.5%), acute kidney injury (95.9%) and haematuria (94.4%). The most infrequently taught topics were male urinary incontinence (59.4%), male infertility (52.4%) and erectile dysfunction (43.8%). Male and female catheterisation on patients as undergraduates was performed by 92.1% and 73.0% of FY1 doctors respectively, and 16.9% had considered a career in urology. Theory based teaching was mainly prevalent in the early years of medical school, with clinical skills teaching, and clinical placements in the later years of medical school. 20.1% of FY1 doctors reported no undergraduate clinical attachment in urology.

CONCLUSION

LEARN is the largest ever evaluation of undergraduate urology teaching. In the UK, teaching seemed satisfactory as evaluated by the BAUS undergraduate syllabus. However, many students report having no clinical attachments in Urology and some newly qualified doctors report never having inserted a catheter, which is a GMC mandated requirement. We recommend a greater emphasis on undergraduate clinical exposure to urology and stricter adherence to GMC mandated procedures.

Deficits in urological knowledge and skills among family medicine residents in Canada

INTRODUCTION

The last 10-15 years has seen a decline in formal undergraduate urological education throughout Canada. Given the large volume of urological presentations in family practice, trainees need to acquire the requisite urological knowledge and skills to serve their patients. The objective of this study is to determine the perceived level of urological knowledge and skills among Canadian family medicine residents.

METHODS

A 15-item, anonymous, online survey was distributed via email to all Canadian family medicine program directors from September to December 2018 and distributed to their residents. The survey obtained data on demographics, training, undergraduate urology experience, self-reported proficiency in interpreting urological investigations, performing common urological procedures, and managing common urological conditions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 142 family medicine residents with representation from Western Canada (27.5%), Ontario (32.4%), and Quebec (40.1%); 39.4% of respondents had completed a urology rotation during medical school and only 29.1% felt that their medical training prepared them for the urological aspects of family medicine. Although the majority of respondents felt proficient in performing a digital rectal examination (58.5%) or managing urinary tract infections (97.9%), only a minority felt competent in performing male genitourinary examination (40.1%), uncomplicated male (34.5%), female (45.8%) or difficult (9.2%) urethral catheterization. Likewise, the minority of respondents felt comfortable managing erectile dysfunction (41.5%), scrotal swelling (34.7%), and scrotal pain (25.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant deficiencies in urological knowledge and skills among family medicine residents in Canada, possibly because of insufficient educational experiences during medical training.

Attitude and perception of urology by fifth-year (GEMPIII) students at the end of their mixed block rotation at Wits Medical School

Background

This University Medical School offers a 6-year MBBCh programme, of which the fifth year consists of seven blocks of 6 weeks each of which 2 weeks are mixed rotations in specialities such as ophthalmology, ear–nose–throat and urology. The purpose of the study was to assess the current urology knowledge and skills confidence amongst undergraduate medical students regarding urological diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, in order to evaluate the current curriculum for possible need of improvement.

Methods

This was a qualitative survey of 250 fifth-year medical students from September 2019 to February 2020. The survey was conducted by means of a questionnaire consisting of two parts: The first component covered the students perceptions of the urology rotation, and the second component contained the students self-evaluations. The aim of the study was to evaluate students perceptions of the current urology curriculum and to assess the possible need for improvement in urological knowledge and skill.

Results

Of 250 (100%) voluntary participants, 159 (63.6%) were female and 91(36.4%) were male. The majority of students considered their urology knowledge on lithiasis/stone disease and erectile dysfunction sufficient and were comfortable with male catheterisation. Voiding dysfunction, paediatric urology and uro-oncology were the subjects students commonly expressed a deficit in. There was a statistical significant difference in females having a more positive attitude to urology, than males (p = 0.02). No statistical significant difference in attitude to urology was found between students who rotated in one center opposed to students who rotated in another center. Indeed, the majority of students had a negative attitude to urology at the end of the mixed block rotations regardless of the training location. Unattractivity and lack of knowledge were the most common reasons for not choosing urology as a career.

Conclusion

The study reveals a need for improvement in basic urological knowledge and skills during the mixed block rotation. A more practical curriculum, taking into account: bedside teachings, attendance of urological clinics and more exposure to urological patients, are some suggestions to be considered in improving the urological educational curriculum.