Are We Exposing Urology Residents to Rural or Non-metropolitan Practice? A Program Director Survey of Urology Residency Training - 08/05/26

, Paul H. Chung b, Kathleen Kieran c, d, Arthur L. Burnett e, Candace F. Granberg fABSTRACT |
Objective |
To determine how many urology residency training programs offer rural rotations. Given that 60% of US counties do not have a urologist and medium-range projected urology workforce shortages, we endeavored to understand this and the barriers and interest in developing such rotations.
Methods |
A collaboration with the American Urological Association Leadership program and the Society of Academic Urology, produced a survey of urology residency program directors to assess current rural training opportunities, barriers, impact on residents, and desire for alternative training tracks.
Results |
Of the 151 training programs that received the survey, 64 responded (42.3%). Currently, 18.75% have a non-metropolitan resident experience, while 75% occur in the PGY-3 or 4 training year and range from 2-12 weeks. Case mix is broad encompassing nearly all aspects of urology. The most common barrier was managing call schedules (25%) and resident salary support (21%) during these rotations.
Conclusion |
Nearly 1 in 6 responding programs have a non-metropolitan urology resident training rotation. Program directors perceive these to offer high value to trainees, though barriers to greater implementation exist. Such a rotation may help improve urology workforce distribution.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Vol 211
P. 129-131 - mai 2026 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 ?
