A qualitative perspectival review of the Australian and New Zealand Urology Education and Training program. (26th December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rashid, Prem
• Is Part Of: BJU international. Volume 119:Number 3(2017)
• Page Start: 496
• Page End: 502
• Publication Date: 2016-12-26
• Subjects: surgical education -- urology training -- urology education -- #urology; Genitourinary organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Genitourinary organs -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1111/bju.13731
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1464-4096

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To conduct a prospective, qualitative review to explore the challenges associated with the delivery of current and future high‐quality urological training, and to report the reflective considerations and opinions of leaders in the Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) urological surgical training programme. Methods: Ethics‐approved semi‐structured, template‐based, qualitative interview techniques were used to evaluate key aspects of the current urology training programme. Those interviewed were senior office bearers and management staff involved in the Surgical Education and Training (SET) programme. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Grounded theory was used with thematic analysis to assess the data. The initial impression given by the data was used to identify critical codes and themes, which were then developed and abstracted to bring together global concepts. Results: Twenty‐four extracted themes were outlined. The recent evolution of urology training was documented as the pathway into training has changed several times over the years. The changes in the programme have led to concern from opinion leaders that the 'pendulum has swung too far.' Surgical teachers will only truly develop if appropriate resources are allocated. This can be achieved by making up‐skilling courses accessible, relevant and, ultimately, a part of the accreditation of training posts. Management of underperforming trainees is challenging and continues to occupy a significant and disproportionate allocation of resources. Early constructive intervention is very important to avoid unnecessary escalation of complex issues and the resultant inter‐personal consequences. Conclusions: The ANZ SET urology programme began, like many of the other surgical specialties, from humble beginnings. It is now a mature programme, but there remain areas needing improvement. The workload of supervisors and office bearers has been increasing and the management of underperforming trainees takes time and resources away from progress in educational development. Progressive steps can be instituted to improve supervisor up‐skilling, and structural changes can be made to ensure that office bearers can continue to undertake their valuable work without undue pressure and stress. Some of this will involve separating innovation in education and training from day‐to‐day trainee management.