Current status of urology surgical training in Europe: an ESRU–ESU–ESUT collaborative study
To determine the current status of surgical training amongst European Urology Residents, including their satisfaction with training and their confidence in performing procedures.
A 23-item survey was distributed to the 15th European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) 2017 participants. An analysis of demographics, workload, training resources, surgical exposure, surgical caseload, satisfaction and confidence in performing each procedure was performed.
A total of 152/350 participants completed the survey (response rate 43%), of which 14% think they perform enough surgeries during their training, and 83% would like to continue training with a fellowship. Confidence in performing procedures without supervision and satisfaction with training was associated with higher surgical caseloads. Confidence in all laparoscopic/robotic procedures (except for laparoscopic/robotic partial nephrectomy) was associated with laparoscopic and robotics training, participation in practical courses and having training resources in hospitals. Satisfaction with surgical training was statistically associated with working ≤ 50 h per week, laparoscopic training and having laparoscopic training boxes.
Surgical exposure of European Urology residents for major/minimally invasive procedures, confidence in performing these procedures, and overall satisfaction with training is low. A higher volume of cases, as well as resources for training are associated with higher individual confidence and satisfaction with training.
KeywordsConfidence Education Europe Residency Satisfaction Simulation Surgical training Urology
We would like to thank Dr. Karl H. Pang, MBChB, BSc, MSc, PhD, MRCS (Eng), from the Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, UK, and board member of the European Society of Residents in Urology for his contribution with editing of the manuscript.
Protocol development: GP, JGR, JLV; Project development: JGR, MER; Data collection: CA, DD FE; Data analysis: JDS, DC; Manuscript writing: DC, GM; Manuscript editing: JGR, KP, DV, ASG, JP.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Carrion DM, Rivas JG, Esperto F, Patruno G, Vasquez JL (2018) Current status of urological training in Europe. Arch Esp Urol 71:11–17Google Scholar
- 3.Rivas JG, Cabello-Benavente R, Bueno-Serrano G, Rodríguez MS, Esteban MF (2018) Current status of urological education in Spain. Arch Esp Urol 71:4–10Google Scholar
- 4.Somani BK, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Gozen A, Palou J, Barmoshe S, Biyani S et al (2018) The European Urology residents education programme hands-on training format: 4 years of hands-on training improvements from the European School of Urology. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.002 Google Scholar
- 5.Domínguez Escrig JL (2018) Homogeneity of the European training program. The role of the European Board of Urology. Arch Esp Urol 71:129–133Google Scholar
- 11.Rodríguez-Socarrás ME, Rivas JG, García-Sanz M, Pesquera L, Tortolero-Blanco L, Ciappara M et al (2017) Medical-surgical activity and the current state of training of urology residents in Spain: results of a national survey. Actas Urol Esp 41:391–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2016.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Veneziano D, Cacciamani G, Shekhar CB (2018) Simulation and training in Urology—in collaboration with ESU/ESUT. Arch Esp Urol 71:55–62Google Scholar
- 22.Veneziano D, Ploumidis A, Proietti S, Tokas T, Kamphuis G, Tripepi G et al (2018) Evolution and uptake of the endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST-s1) protocol: establishment, validation, and assessment in a collaboration by the European School of Urology and the Uro-Technology and Urolithiasis Sections. Eur Urol 74:401–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar