Are Canadian urology residency programs fulfilling the Royal College expectations?: A survey of graduated chief residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We assess outgoing Canadian urology chief residents' well-being, their satisfaction with their surgical training, and their proficiency in surgical procedures throughout their residency program. METHODS: In 2012 an anonymous survey was sent by email to all 29 graduated urology chief residents across Canada. The survey included a list of all urologic surgical procedures listed by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC). According to the A/B/C classification used to assess competence in these procedures (A most competent, C least competent), we asked chief residents to self-classify their competence with regards to each procedure and we compared the final results to the current RCPSC classification. RESULTS: The overall response rate among chief residents surveyed was 97%. An overwhelming majority (96.4%) of residents agreed that the residency program has affected their overall well-being, as well as their relationships with their families and/or partners (67.8%). Overall, 85.7% agreed that research was an integral part of the residency program and 78.6% have enrolled in a fellowship program post-graduation. Respondents believed that they have received the least adequate training in robotic surgery (89.3%), followed by female urology (67.8%), andrology/sexual medicine/infertility (67.8%), and reconstructive urology (61.4%). Interestingly, in several of the 42 surgical procedures classified as category A by the RCPSC, a significant percentage of residents felt that their proficiency was not category A, including repair of urinary fistulae (82.1%), pediatric indirect hernia repair and meatal repair for glanular hypospadias (67.9%), open pyeloplasty (64.3%), anterior pelvic exenteration (61.6%), open varicocelectomy (60.7%) and radical cystoprostatectomy (33.3%). Furthermore, all respondents (100%) believed they were deficient in at least 1 of the 42 category A procedures, while 53.6 % believed they were deficient in at least 10 of the 42 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Most residents agree that their residency program has affected their overall well-being as well as their relationships with their families and/or partners. There is also a clear deficiency in what outgoing residents perceive they have achieved and what the RCPSC mandates. Future work should concentrate on addressing this discrepancy to assure that training and RCPSC expectations are better aligned.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".