Educational Resources for Resident Training in Quality Improvement: A National Survey of Urology Residency Program Directors

Justin B. Ziemba, Brian R. Matlaga, Christopher Tessier

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: A key physician competency outlined in the Urology Milestone Project is engagement in quality improvement. Despite this mandate little is known about the attitudes of urology residency program directors regarding the relative importance of quality improvement education. Therefore, we performed a national survey of program directors. Methods: A 25-item survey was developed to investigate program director knowledge and training in quality improvement methodology, participation in quality improvement related activities, curriculum support for resident quality improvement educational activities, and attitudes regarding the relative importance of quality improvement education. The survey was sent via e-mail (November 1, 2016) to all program directors affiliated with the Society of Academic Urologists (sample size 116 of 134, 87% of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs). Results: A total of 36 program directors returned a completed survey for a response rate of 31%. Only 22% (8) of program directors reported receiving formal education or training in quality improvement methodology. Overall 44% (16) of program directors reported that their program offers formal education or a curriculum in quality improvement methodology for their trainees. Program directors expressed a strong desire for residents to learn quality improvement methodology (positive response 32 of 36, 89%) and understand how to apply it to conduct a quality improvement project (positive response 30 of 35, 86%). Program directors strongly believe that a urology oriented quality improvement curriculum would be a valuable resource (positive response 31 of 36, 86%) with a need for support from our professional society (positive response 29 of 36, 81%). Conclusions: A minority of programs have quality improvement education available for residents. However, program directors agree that quality improvement is an integral part of residency training that should be promoted by our profession.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)398-404
Number of pages7
JournalUrology Practice
Volume5
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2018

Fingerprint

Urology
Internship and Residency
Quality Improvement
Education
Curriculum
Surveys and Questionnaires
Graduate Medical Education
Accreditation
Postal Service
Sample Size

Keywords

  • education
  • internship and residency
  • quality improvement
  • quality of health care
  • urology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Educational Resources for Resident Training in Quality Improvement : A National Survey of Urology Residency Program Directors. / Ziemba, Justin B.; Matlaga, Brian R.; Tessier, Christopher.

In: Urology Practice, Vol. 5, No. 5, 01.09.2018, p. 398-404.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{63470b2faa974ae8b20d7ef182607743,
title = "Educational Resources for Resident Training in Quality Improvement: A National Survey of Urology Residency Program Directors",
abstract = "Introduction: A key physician competency outlined in the Urology Milestone Project is engagement in quality improvement. Despite this mandate little is known about the attitudes of urology residency program directors regarding the relative importance of quality improvement education. Therefore, we performed a national survey of program directors. Methods: A 25-item survey was developed to investigate program director knowledge and training in quality improvement methodology, participation in quality improvement related activities, curriculum support for resident quality improvement educational activities, and attitudes regarding the relative importance of quality improvement education. The survey was sent via e-mail (November 1, 2016) to all program directors affiliated with the Society of Academic Urologists (sample size 116 of 134, 87{\%} of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs). Results: A total of 36 program directors returned a completed survey for a response rate of 31{\%}. Only 22{\%} (8) of program directors reported receiving formal education or training in quality improvement methodology. Overall 44{\%} (16) of program directors reported that their program offers formal education or a curriculum in quality improvement methodology for their trainees. Program directors expressed a strong desire for residents to learn quality improvement methodology (positive response 32 of 36, 89{\%}) and understand how to apply it to conduct a quality improvement project (positive response 30 of 35, 86{\%}). Program directors strongly believe that a urology oriented quality improvement curriculum would be a valuable resource (positive response 31 of 36, 86{\%}) with a need for support from our professional society (positive response 29 of 36, 81{\%}). Conclusions: A minority of programs have quality improvement education available for residents. However, program directors agree that quality improvement is an integral part of residency training that should be promoted by our profession.",
keywords = "education, internship and residency, quality improvement, quality of health care, urology",
author = "Ziemba, {Justin B.} and Matlaga, {Brian R.} and Christopher Tessier",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urpr.2017.08.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "398--404",
journal = "Urology Practice",
issn = "2352-0779",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Educational Resources for Resident Training in Quality Improvement

T2 - A National Survey of Urology Residency Program Directors

AU - Ziemba, Justin B.

AU - Matlaga, Brian R.

AU - Tessier, Christopher

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - Introduction: A key physician competency outlined in the Urology Milestone Project is engagement in quality improvement. Despite this mandate little is known about the attitudes of urology residency program directors regarding the relative importance of quality improvement education. Therefore, we performed a national survey of program directors. Methods: A 25-item survey was developed to investigate program director knowledge and training in quality improvement methodology, participation in quality improvement related activities, curriculum support for resident quality improvement educational activities, and attitudes regarding the relative importance of quality improvement education. The survey was sent via e-mail (November 1, 2016) to all program directors affiliated with the Society of Academic Urologists (sample size 116 of 134, 87% of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs). Results: A total of 36 program directors returned a completed survey for a response rate of 31%. Only 22% (8) of program directors reported receiving formal education or training in quality improvement methodology. Overall 44% (16) of program directors reported that their program offers formal education or a curriculum in quality improvement methodology for their trainees. Program directors expressed a strong desire for residents to learn quality improvement methodology (positive response 32 of 36, 89%) and understand how to apply it to conduct a quality improvement project (positive response 30 of 35, 86%). Program directors strongly believe that a urology oriented quality improvement curriculum would be a valuable resource (positive response 31 of 36, 86%) with a need for support from our professional society (positive response 29 of 36, 81%). Conclusions: A minority of programs have quality improvement education available for residents. However, program directors agree that quality improvement is an integral part of residency training that should be promoted by our profession.

AB - Introduction: A key physician competency outlined in the Urology Milestone Project is engagement in quality improvement. Despite this mandate little is known about the attitudes of urology residency program directors regarding the relative importance of quality improvement education. Therefore, we performed a national survey of program directors. Methods: A 25-item survey was developed to investigate program director knowledge and training in quality improvement methodology, participation in quality improvement related activities, curriculum support for resident quality improvement educational activities, and attitudes regarding the relative importance of quality improvement education. The survey was sent via e-mail (November 1, 2016) to all program directors affiliated with the Society of Academic Urologists (sample size 116 of 134, 87% of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education programs). Results: A total of 36 program directors returned a completed survey for a response rate of 31%. Only 22% (8) of program directors reported receiving formal education or training in quality improvement methodology. Overall 44% (16) of program directors reported that their program offers formal education or a curriculum in quality improvement methodology for their trainees. Program directors expressed a strong desire for residents to learn quality improvement methodology (positive response 32 of 36, 89%) and understand how to apply it to conduct a quality improvement project (positive response 30 of 35, 86%). Program directors strongly believe that a urology oriented quality improvement curriculum would be a valuable resource (positive response 31 of 36, 86%) with a need for support from our professional society (positive response 29 of 36, 81%). Conclusions: A minority of programs have quality improvement education available for residents. However, program directors agree that quality improvement is an integral part of residency training that should be promoted by our profession.

KW - education

KW - internship and residency

KW - quality improvement

KW - quality of health care

KW - urology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050858965&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050858965&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urpr.2017.08.001

DO - 10.1016/j.urpr.2017.08.001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85050858965

VL - 5

SP - 398

EP - 404

JO - Urology Practice

JF - Urology Practice

SN - 2352-0779

IS - 5

ER -