MP23-10 CURRENT OPINIONS OF PROGRAM DIRECTORS ON THE ROLE OF SIMULATION IN UROLOGICAL RESIDENCY TRAINING.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Although simulation has become increasingly accessible, urology residency training has continued to teach technical skills through hands-on experience without a nationally-adopted curriculum for teaching and testing these skills. In this study, we survey the current usage of simulation, the receptiveness to incorporating a simulation curriculum if one were made available, and the barriers to implementing it into the residency training programs.
METHODS
All residency program directors at the 122 ACGME-accredited urology training programs in the United States were invited to complete an anonymous electronic survey. A total of 43 completed surveys were received (35% response rate). The first portion of the study included 9 questions evaluating the program director experiences with, current usage of, and opinions of existing urology simulators. The second portion of the questionnaire elicited responder opinions on the receptiveness of incorporating a simulation program into the training curriculum and the barriers to implementing said curriculum
RESULTS
Among responders, up to 40% had prior experience with simulators during residency training and 97% report having access to a simulation education center for their urology residents. Of those, 58% have incorporated simulation into their curriculum. Laparoscopic/Robotic simulators, and TURP are the most commonly used (95 and 26% respectively), and thought to be the most realistic and useful. 87% of Responders agree there is a role for a standardized simulator training curriculum and 90% agree that simulators are a useful tool for teaching surgical techniques and would improve performance in the OR. 64% agree cost is a limiting factor for using simulators in the training program. 12% agree on the cost-effectiveness of simulators, 15% agree on simulators have been validated as an educational tool, 55% agree on whether faculty would be willing to participate in administrating the simulation curriculum, 35% agree on whether there is an increased need for simulator education with the 80-hour work week limitations, and 38% agree on whether a simulation program would reduce patient risks and complications.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of program director respondents believe there is a role for incorporating a simulation curriculum as part of the urology training, but barriers to implementing this include cost burden, need for constant technology updates, need for advanced planning, and the willingness of the faculty to participate in administration.
