Pathways to paediatric urology subspecialisation:a study of casemix, incumbent attitudes and opinions

Objective: To identify any self-reported differences or attitudes towards certification, publication, or practice patterns between adult urology and paediatric general surgery-trained paediatric urology providers. There are no known published differences in clinical/operative/research outcomes in either group. Methods: An 18-item cross-sectional survey was compiled through the EAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) office and disseminated to a trans-Atlantic convenience sample of current practising paediatric urologists. This was created using a mini-Delphi method to provide current semi-quantitative data relating to current opinions and attitudes of this cohort. Results: A total of 228 respondents completed the survey, with female respondents representing 37% and 34% for urology and paediatric general surgery, respectively. Nearly 90% overall respondents felt that a full 2-year paediatric fellowship program was very important and 94% endorsed a collaborative dedicated paediatric urology on call service, with 92% supporting the joint development of transitional care. Urology managed higher numbers of bedwetting (p = 0.04), bladder bowel dysfunction (p = 0.02), endourological procedures (p = 0.04), and robotics (p = 0.04). Paediatric general surgery managed higher numbers of laparoscopic reconstruction (p = 0.03), and posterior urethral valve ablation (p = 0.002). Conclusion: This study represents the first time that a cross-sectional cohort of paediatric urologists from different training backgrounds were compared to assess their productivity, practice patterns and attitudes. Paediatric urology is in a unique position to have two contributing specialities, with the ability to provide optimal transitional and lifelong care. We believe that there should be a strong emphasis on collaboration and to remove any historically-created barriers under policies of equity, diversity and inclusivity.