Attitudes and experiences of residents in pursuit of postgraduate fellowships: A national survey of Canadian trainees

Abstract

Introduction: There have been significant pressures on urology training in North America over the last decade due to both the constantly evolving skill set required and the external demands around delivery of urological care, particularly in Canada. We explore the attitudes and experience of Canadian urology residents toward their postgraduate decisions on fellowship opportunities.

Methods: The study consisted of a self-report questionnaire of 4 separate cohorts of graduating urology residents from 2008 to 2011. The first cohort graduating in 2008 and 2009 were sent surveys through SurveyMonkey.com after graduation from residency; those graduating in 2010 and 2011 were prospectively invited as a convenience sample attending a Queen’s Urology Examination Skills Training Program review course just prior to graduation. The survey included both open- and closed-ended questions, employing a 5-point Likert scale, and explored the attitudes and experience of fellowship choices. Likert scores for each question were reported as means ± standard deviation (SD). Descriptive and correlative statistics were used to analyze the responses. In addition, an agreement score was created for those responding with “strongly agree” and “agree” on the Likert scale.

Results: A total of 104 surveys were administered, with 84 respondents (80.8% response rate). As a whole, 84.9% of respondents agreed that they pursued fellowships; oncology and minimally invasive urology were the most popular choices throughout the 4 years. Respondents stated that reasons for pursuing a fellowship included: interest in pursuing an academic career (mean 3.73± 1.1 (SD): agreement score 61.1%) as well as acquiring marketable skills to obtain an urology position (3.59 ± 1.3: 64.4%). Most agreed or strongly agreed (84.9%) that a reason for pursing a fellowship was an interest in focusing their practice to this sub-specialty area. In comparison, most graduates disagreed that a reason for pursuing a fellowship was that residency did not equip them with the necessary skills to practice urology (2.49 ± 1.2: 19%). Most (81.2%) of graduates agreed they knew enough about academic urology to know if it would be a suitable career choice for them versus 54.7% regarding community urology (p < 0.0001). Surprisingly, only 61.7% of residents agreed that they completed a community elective during training, and most felt they would have benefited from additional elective time in the community.

Conclusions: Urology residents graduating from Canadian programs pursue postgraduate training to enhance their surgical skill set and to achieve marketability, but also to facilitate a potential academic career. Responses from the trainees suggest that exposure to community practice appears suboptimal and may be an area of focus for programs to aid in career counselling and professional development.