Search

Introduction: We characterize factors associated with recruitment of underrepresented in medicine urology trainees and faculty to academic institutions given the excessive disparity between urology and other fields of medicine., Methods: A database of urology faculty and residents in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs was created. Demographic data were obtained from departmental websites, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Doximity. Program prestige was defined by U.S. News and World Report rankings. Program location and city size were determined using the U.S. Census data. Multivariable analysis was performed assessing the association of gender, AUA section, city size, and rankings on underrepresented in medicine recruitment., Results: Of urologists in this study 8.7% were underrepresented in medicine status. More women urologists were underrepresented in medicine (31.4%) than non-underrepresented in medicine (21.3%; P < .001). Factors predictive of more underrepresented in medicine urologists were practice in South Central AUA section (OR 2.1, P = .04), and medium metro areas (OR 1.6, P < .01). Among residents, factors predictive of more underrepresented in medicine urologists were female gender ( P < .001), living in medium metro areas ( P = .03), and training in top 10 programs ( P = .001). Underrepresented in medicine faculty were more likely to be women compared to non-underrepresented in medicine faculty ( P = .05). Pearson correlation test found no association between the presence of underrepresented in medicine faculty and underrepresented in medicine residents (r = 0.20)., Conclusions: Underrepresented in medicine urology residents and faculty were more likely to be women, compared to non-underrepresented in medicine residents and faculty. Underrepresented in medicine residents are more prevalent in medium metro areas and in top 10 programs. More underrepresented in medicine faculty status was not associated with more underrepresented in medicine residents.

Introduction: Our objective is to assess the impact of the virtual interview (VI) format on urology residency interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspectives of program directors (PDs)., Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to PDs of American Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited urology residency programs. Questions were designed to evaluate how VIs affected programs' assessment of applicants, interview logistics, and overall perspectives regarding in-person and virtual interviews., Results: A total of 42 PDs (31%) responded to our survey. VIs negatively affected programs' ability to assess applicants' fit with their residency program (71%), commitment to urology along with their ability to function as a resident (67%), and personality and communication skills (71%) when compared to in-person interviews. Fifty percent of PDs reported that they relied more heavily on objective metrics when ranking applicants, compared to prior years. VIs were more economical than in-person interviews for all participating programs, with each program saving an average of $3,135 in interview-related costs. Additionally, 33% of PDs reported that VIs were less time-consuming when compared to in-person interviews, with 26% of PDs reporting that they were able to interview more applicants. Only 19% of PDs reported that VIs were better than in-person interviews. Given the option, 60% of PDs intend on hosting both virtual and in-person interviews moving forward, while 9% and 31% of programs intend to exclusively host virtual and in-person interviews, respectively., Conclusions: PDs perceived VIs to be less reliable than in-person interviews for subjective evaluation of applicants; however, many PDs still desire to integrate VIs in future application cycles.

Introduction: COVID-19 has brought unprecedented challenges to the delivery of urological care. Following rapid implementation of remote video visits at our tertiary academic medical center serving a large rural population we describe and assess our experience with planned video visits and ongoing scheduling efforts., Methods: Patients scheduled for video visits between April 14 and April 27, 2020 were included. Prospective and retrospective data were collected on patient and clinical characteristics as well as telemedicine outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate factors influencing video visit success. Concurrently scheduling data were collected from a separate cohort regarding patient access to technology and willingness to participate in video visits., Results: A total of 209 patients were included with an overall video visit success rate of 67%. Of video visits that failed (69) reasons included no-show (35%), inability to connect to the telemedicine platform (23%) and lack of Internet access (10%). Nearly half of failed video visits (46.4%) were completed as phone visits. After adjustment for patient demographics commercial insurance was significantly associated with video visit success. In assessment of scheduling outcomes 179 patients were contacted to offer video visits. Of these patients 6.7% reported not having Internet access. Of those with Internet access 87% agreed to proceed with a video visit in lieu of visiting in person., Conclusions: Our experience indicates that rapid implementation of video telemedicine is feasible and highly accepted by patients. Efforts focused on standardized pre-visit patient education may further optimize successful telemedicine visits.

Introduction: Workforce disparities in medicine have been well documented. Early medical school exposures have been shown to highly influence career choice. We hypothesized that gender and racial disparities exist in early medical school exposures to urology., Methods: We surveyed urology residency applicants who interviewed at our institution from 2016 to 2017. Student demographics were collected in addition to forms of urology exposures (clinical and research). Early urology exposure was defined as occurring before the 3rd year of medical school. Early exposures were compared by gender and racial/ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine., Results: During the study period 72 interviewees were invited to participate and 71 completed the survey (response rate 98.6%). The majority of participants were male (54, 76%). Thirteen participants (18%) met the criteria for underrepresented in medicine. Fewer female applicants discovered urology (41% vs 75%, p=0.01), first shadowed a urologist (35% vs 68%, p=0.02), first operated with a urologist (29% vs 60%, p=0.03) and began research (0% vs 49%, p <0.001) before the 3rd year of medical school compared to male applicants. Fewer applicants underrepresented in medicine had shadowed a urologist before the 3rd year of medical school (31% vs 67%, p=0.02). We found no other statistical differences between those underrepresented in medicine and those not underrepresented in medicine in terms of other early urology exposures, medical school urology opportunities or personal exposures., Conclusions: Disparities in early urology exposures, especially research exposure, exist by gender and less so among applicants underrepresented in medicine. Identifying these disparities may uncover systemic bias within career trajectories and provide targets for earlier interventions in medical school training.