Omar Ahmad¹*, Edouard Fortier¹, PR Stéphane Droupy² and Laurent Wagner²

¹Department of Urology, University Hospital of Montpellier, France
²Urology Department, University Hospital of Nîmes, France

*Corresponding Author: Omar Ahmad, Department of Urology, University Hospital of Montpellier, France.

Received: March 22, 2021; Published: June 02, 2021

Abstract

Objectives: Urology training worldwide is dynamic. In France, the training curriculum is constantly evaluated and reforms are entering a new phase in France since the 2017 revisions. Previously, there was no uniform practical training in urology throughout the country. However, the modern demands of healthcare require competence, and standardization of the curriculum. This study’s main objective was to assess the quality of urodynamics training provided to interns and clinic assistants in urology departments in France in 2020.

Methods: We performed an analytical, cross-sectional, prospective study from March to August 2020, that included all but 2 of the existing medical schools and university hospitals in France. Data were collected through exhaustive sampling using a questionnaire that was administered to each respondent.

Results: This study included 44 respondents from 18 university hospitals. Out of the respondents, 56.8% were urology residents. Regarding the place of urodynamic training in urological education, 50% of respondents felt it was important and satisfactory. Furthermore, 63.6% of respondents strongly indicated that they would consider receiving urodynamic education through DIUs, DUs, and ECUs, and 65.9% believed that it was possible for urodynamic training to be added to the program. When the performance and interpretation of urodynamic procedures (uroflowmetry, cystomanometry, and urethral profilometry) were compared, the average rate per resident was above 10. The differences in experience could be due to lack of a standardized and up-to-date urodynamic training curriculum, as 68.18% of respondents were enrolled in urology courses prior to the 2017 reforms.

Conclusion: Despite the low participation in this preliminary survey, we deduced that the majority of French residents have received teaching in urodynamics, which most consider as insufficient. They learned the theoretical notions largely through self-study or oral transmission of knowledge. They prefer to have a theoretical active education preferentially through courses at the faculty or by senior urologists.

Keywords: Urology Training; Urodynamics; Questionnaire; Residency Programs; Analytical Study

References

1. Lavi A., et al. “The Urology Residency Program in Israel-Results of a Residents Survey and Insights for the Future” (2017).
2. Sataa S. “Challenges for a resident in urology in Tunisia” (2011).
3. Okhunov Z., et al. “Evaluation of urology residency training and perceived resident abilities in the United States” (2020).
4. Nasca TJ., et al. “The next GME accreditation system”. Rationale and Benefits (2020).
5. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Case Log Information: urology review committee for urology (2018).
6. Steinberg P. “Are urologists properly trained in urodynamics (UDS) during training? (2019).
7. Karim Bensalah., et al. “American and French Urologists: what differences on either side of the Atlantic?” (2019).
8. Ruffion A. “DES reform: the points of vigilance” (2020).

Citation

Citation: Omar Ahmad., et al. “A Preliminary National Survey on Urodynamics Teaching during Urology Residency in France". Acta Scientific Clinical Case Reports 2.7 (2021): 03-09.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2021 Omar Ahmad., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.