Royal College surgical objectives of urologie training: A survey of faculty members from Canadian training programs.

Introduction: According to the Royal College objectives of training in urology, urologie surgical procedures are divided as category A, B and C. We wanted to determine the level of proficiency required and achieved by urology training faculty for Royal College accreditation. Methods: We conducted a survey that was sent electronically to all Canadian urology training faculty. Questions focused on demographics (i.e., years of practice, geographic location, subspecialty, access to robotic surgery), operating room contact with residents, opinion on the level of proficiency required from a list of 54 surgical procedures, and whether their most recent graduates attained category A proficiency in these procedures. Results: The response rate was 43.7% (95/217). Among respondents, 92.6% were full timers, 21.1% practiced urology for less than 5 years and 3.2% for more than 30 years. Responses from Quebec and Ontario formed 69.4% (34.7% each). Of the respondents, 37.9% were uro-oncologists and 75.7% reported having access to robotic surgery. Sixty percent of faculty members operate with R5 residents between 2 to 5 days per month. When respondents were asked which categories should be listed as category A, only 8 procedures received 100% agreement. Also, results varied significantly when analyzed by sub-specialty. For example, almost 50% or more of uro-oncologists believed that radical cystectomy, anterior pelvic exenteration and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy should not be category A. The following procedures had significant disagreement suggesting the need for re-classification: glanular hypospadias repair, boari flap, entero-vesical and vesicovaginal fistulae repair. Overall, more than 80% of faculty reported that their recent graduating residents had achieved category A proficiency, in a subset of procedures. However, more than 50% of all faculty either disagreed or were ambivalent that all of their graduating residents were Category A proficient in several procedures. Conclusions: There is sufficient disagreement among Canadian urology faculty to suggest another revision of the current Royal College list of category A procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]