Evaluation of Educational Feedback in Urology Training: A Survey-Based Assessment of Trainees and Program Directors.

Autor:	Waisanen K; Urology, Lee Physician Group Urology, Fort Myers, USA.; Urology, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA., Parmar G; Urology, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA., Iskhakov N; Urology, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA., Baetzhold D; Urology, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA., Lutnick E; Urology, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA., Henning F; Urology, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA., Saade K; Urology, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA., Peterson M; Urology, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA., Nader N; Urology, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA.; VA (Veteran Affairs) WNY (Western New York) Health Care System, Buffalo VA Medical Center, Buffalo, USA., Chevli KK; Urology, University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Cureus [Cureus] 2024 Jan 05; Vol. 16 (1), pp. e51716. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jan 05 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI:	10.7759/cureus.51716
Abstrakt:	Objective: Our objective was to evaluate current satisfaction with the feedback provided during post-graduate urological training, including the quality and frequency of feedback, with participants consisting of both trainees and program directors. Additionally, we aimed to identify areas for future improvement in resident and fellow-level urological training. Methods: Graduating residents, fellows, and program directors from accredited residency/fellowship programs in the United States were surveyed. A total of 575 surveys were sent out. Information on feedback frequency, quality, form, and satisfaction was collected using applicable multiple-choice responses and a five-point Likert scale. An open-ended question gathered suggestions for improving current feedback processes. A chi-square test of independence was used to compare the responses to individual questions. Results: Ninety-two respondents answered our survey: 22 residents, 18 fellows, 25 residency program directors (PDs), and 27 fellowship PDs. The distribution of age, race, and gender categories was not significantly different between PDs and trainees. However, there was a significant difference in their subspecialties and American Urological Association (AUA) sections. The majority of fellowship PDs, residency PDs, fellows, and residents (88 total) reported verbal feedback as the predominant method within their practice. This was followed by written (68 total), electronic (54 total), and app-based feedback (19 total). Conclusion: Our study suggests that there may be a need for ongoing improvement or standardization of feedback mechanisms in the field of urological training and highlights the perceived discrepancies between learners and educators. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. (Copyright © 2024, Waisanen et al.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu