Is there a Need for an Undergraduate Urological Curriculum?

Shaping the Undergraduate Curriculum in Europe: Consensus Statement from the European School of Urology

The European School of Urology has created a taskforce to develop a comprehensive, structured urology curriculum with clinical exposure, practical skills, and hands-on training. The curriculum proposal includes cognitive teaching by symptoms and practical aspects to guarantee uniform access to undergraduate medical education in urology among all European countries, regardless of location, local urology exposure, or bias in national curricula.

Essentials for Standardising the Undergraduate Urology Curriculum in Europe: Outcomes of a Delphi Consensus from the European School of Urology

Background

The burden of urological diseases is rising as the worldwide population ages. Although specialist urological provision is needed, a large proportion of these conditions will be managed in primary care. The importance of including urology in medical education currently remains unclear.

Objective

To provide recommendations on undergraduate medical education for urology in Europe.

Design, setting, and participants

A three-round Delphi process to reach consensus on standardising the undergraduate urology curriculum in Europe was endorsed by the European School of Urology.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The levels of agreement were set using a nine-point scale according to the GRADE grid: 1–3, disagree; 4–6, uncertain; and 7–9, agree. Consensus was defined as at least 70% of the participants scoring within the same 3-point grouping.

Results and limitations

Overall, consensus was reached for 20 of 34 statements (70.5%) across the three Delphi rounds, with agreement for 75% (n = 15) and disagreement for 25% (n = 5). The following main points were agreed. Urological teaching should be introduced before year 5 of medical school, with at least 20 h of theoretical activities and at least 30 h of practical activities. Urology should be taught as a stand-alone subject rather than combined with another surgical specialty or a nephrology programme. The participants agreed that urology should be taught according to symptoms. A urology programme should include the anatomy and physiology of the urinary tract, and students should know how to clinically assess a urological patient.

Conclusions

Our recommended urology pathway will allow European medical schools to provide a more comprehensive undergraduate urology curriculum. It will also help to improve and maintain standards of urology undergraduate teaching across Europe.

Patient summary

Our survey showed that urology in universities should have, at minimum, time for theoretical and practical activities and should be taught as a stand-alone subject on the basis of symptoms. Students should give feedback to facilitate constant improvement and evolution of the teaching programme.

The effects of COVID-19 on training within urology: Lessons learned in virtual learning, human factors, non-technical skills and reflective practice

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed training and recruitment in urology in unprecedented ways. As efforts are made to ensure trainees can continue to progress, lessons can be learned to improve training and urological practice even after the acute phase of the pandemic is over. Novel methods of education through virtual learning have burgeoned amidst the social distancing the pandemic has brought. The importance of training in human factors and non-technical skills has also been brought to the fore while operating under the constraints of personal protective equipment and working in new teams and unfamiliar environments. This paper critically appraises the available evidence of how urological training has been affected by COVID-19 and the lessons we have learned and continue to learn going forward.

Level of Evidence

Not Applicable.

Urology boot camp for medical students: improving knowledge and confidence in preparation for clinical practice

Objectives:

Undergraduate exposure to urology is limited and junior doctors often feel underprepared for managing urological problems. We therefore established a one-day urology teaching course which covered the entire British Association of Urological Surgeons curriculum.

Methods:

Graduates of a teaching hospital undertook a survey regarding their practical skills and knowledge in urology ( n=20), with responses compared to a sample of students who attended the boot camp ( n=24).

Results:

Forty per cent of graduates thought they knew most of the curriculum and 0% knew the entire curriculum, increasing to 79.4% and 8.3%, respectively, in the post-boot camp cohort. Forty per cent felt ‘mostly prepared’ for final examinations, increasing to 70.8%; 35% rated their knowledge as ‘good’, increasing to 50%, with a further 12.5% feeling it was ‘excellent’; 0% were ‘very confident’ in examination skills, increasing to 20.8%. One hundred per cent of students thought the boot camp helped in preparation for medical finals, 70.8% felt it better prepared them for foundation training. All course candidates thought the course increased their knowledge and skills in urology.

Conclusion:

This urology boot camp improves medical students’ skills and knowledge. This course would benefit medical students nationally, providing comprehensive, standardised training in urology and preparing students for final examinations and foundation years.

Level of evidence:

Not applicable.

Undergraduate Education for Urology in Europe. Where Do We Stand?

Regardless of career intentions, junior doctors will meet patients with urological problems. There are no studies on the status of undergraduate education for urology in Europe. We designed an 18-item online survey using the platform www.surveymonkey.com to assess the current status of undergraduate education in urology. A total of 347 medical students, trainees, and urologists responded to the survey. Medical students' exposure to urology during their undergraduate career was heterogeneous. Although the quality of urology education was valued from moderate to high, urology as a speciality did not influence their future training decision making. Decision making in relation to residency training correlated with the number of hours spent on practical training, duration of urology rotation, and year of medical school in which urological exposure was introduced. The current European exposure to urology at undergraduate level is heterogeneous, with various factors influencing future decisions regarding training and specialisation. A uniform undergraduate curriculum would eliminate such heterogeneous exposure and facilitate a workforce fit for the future urological needs. PATIENT SUMMARY: Junior doctors will meet patients with urological problems in the wards, emergency departments, and primary care. Institutions should work together for a urological curriculum that fits the future clinical requirements.