Criteria Used by Endourology Society Fellowship Program Directors for the Selection and Evaluation of Fellows
| Autor: | William Atallah, Areeba Setara Sadiq, Kavita Gupta, Mantu Gupta, Johnathan A. Khusid, Dara Lundon, Blair Gallante |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2022 |
| Předmět: |
Medical education
ComputingMilieux_THECOMPUTINGPROFESSION Demographics business.industry Urology MEDLINE Internship and Residency Likert scale Robotic Surgical Procedures Education Medical Graduate Phone Surveys and Questionnaires Candidacy Humans Medicine Clinical Competence Fellowships and Scholarships Duration (project management) business Selection (genetic algorithm) Clinical skills |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Endourology. 36:562-571 |
| ISSN: | 1557-900X 0892-7790 |
| Popis: | Introduction An understanding of which trainee factors Endourology Society (ES) fellowship program directors (PDs) value may help urology residents optimize their fellowship candidacy and help current fellows optimize their fellowship performance. In the present study, we evaluated which factors are most important to ES PDs in selecting fellowship candidates and evaluating current fellows. Methods A survey was constructed using REDCap software and emailed to PDs of fellowships registered with the ES. Fellowships in the ES include Endourology-Stone Disease (ESD) programs, robotic-laparoscopic surgery programs (MIS), and combination programs. A Likert scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important) was used to rank the criteria for selecting and evaluating fellows. The survey captured program demographics such as geographic region, program type, and program duration. Results Of the 52 ES PDs, 35 (67%) responded. Respondents represented 8 (23%) ESD programs, 7 (20%) MIS programs, and 20 (57%) combination programs. Furthermore, sixteen (46%) represented one-year programs and 19 (54%) represented two-year programs. The top-five factors for candidate selection were perceived fit of the applicant, perceived level of applicant interest, initial interview, personal emails from applicants' advocates, and personal phone calls from applicants' advocates. Advocacy on behalf of the applicant appeared to be especially important for two-year fellowships. The top-five factors for the evaluation of fellows in training were patient interactions, professionalism, attitude/demeanor, operative skills, and interactions with ancillary staff. Research productivity was of greater importance for the evaluation and selection of two-year fellows and ESD fellows. Conclusions Applicants for ES fellowships should focus on the initial interview and recruiting supportive mentors to advocate for their applications, particularly for two-year programs. Though PDs value both clinical skills and research productivity, research productivity was more important for two-year programs and ESD programs. Further research into applicant perspectives on the fellowship application process is warranted. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|