Experiences With Quality Improvement in Training: A National Survey of Urology Residents - 04/11/20
, Young J. Lee 2, Morgan M. Millar 3, Patrick C. Cartwright 1, Brigitte K. Smith 4Résumé |
Objective |
To determine the quality improvement (QI) experiences of urology residents in the United States.
Materials and Methods |
An Institutional Review Board approved national survey of Urology residents was administered in June 2019. The survey instrument sought to understand QI curricular methods and experiences of urology residents as well as their knowledge of QI fundamentals.
Results |
Of 465 invited residents, 159 (34%) responded. Respondents represented all 8 AUA sections. The majority of respondents self-identified as white (66%). Females made up 30% of respondents.
Less than 1/3 of residents (32%) report use of online modules, whereas nearly 2/3 (63%) report lecture-based didactics. Fifteen percent of residents report no QI curriculum. While nearly 2/3 of residents report receiving training in QI principles (64%), far less report receiving training in how to apply QI methodology (44%). Only 29% of residents report being required to lead a QI project. No differences were seen by training level.
Only 3 respondents had heard of the Institute of Medicine's aims for quality improvement. Respondents had better knowledge of process, balancing and outcome measures, but less than half of respondents (49%) were able to correctly identify all 3. Having any QI curriculum is associated with correctly answering knowledge questions (P = .03).
Conclusion |
From a resident perspective, urology residency programs currently provide QI curricula that are inadequate to ensure residents achieve Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones. It is imperative the urology community as a whole address these curricular gaps to ensure graduates are prepared to deliver high-quality, cost-conscious care to their patients once in practice.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Mots-clés : Abbreviations: ACGME, ABU, ACS, AUA, HVC, PBLI, PS, PGY, QI, QIPS, QITI, SBP
Plan
| Source of funding: This investigation was supported by the University of Utah Population Health Research (PHR) Foundation, with funding in part from the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant UL1TR002538 (formerly 5UL1TR001067-05, 8UL1TR000105, and UL1RR025764). |
Vol 145
P. 83-89 - novembre 2020 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
