Establishing milestones in urology training: A survey of the Canadian Academy of Urological Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: : At the current time, technical skills are not directly evaluated by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) as part of the certification process in urology. Rather, the RCPSC relies on the evaluation of Program Directors to ensure that trainees have acquired the necessary surgical skills. METHODS: : An electronic survey was sent out to the members of the Canadian Academy of Urological Surgeons (CAUS), including the 13 Canadian urology program directors, to assess the teaching and evaluation of technical skills of urology trainees. RESULTS: : The response rate was 37% (33/89), including 8 of the 13 (62%) Program Directors from across Canada. For the teaching of technical skills, most programs had access to live animal laboratories (69%), dedicated teaching time in simulation (59%) and physical training models (59%). Most relied on voluntary faculty. There was a wide variety of structured evaluations for technical skills used across programs, while 36% of respondents did not use structured evaluations. For trainees with deficiencies in technical skills, 67% of programs offered extra operative time with designated faculty, 26% offered additional simulation focused on the deficiency and 19% offered faculty tutorial sessions. CONCLUSION: : Among Canadian urology residency programs, there is considerable variability in the assessment of technical skills of trainees. Standardized objective assessment tools would help ensure that all trainees have acquired adequate surgical proficiency to operate independently.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".