TY - JOUR
T1 - Essentials for Standardising the Undergraduate Urology Curriculum in Europe
T2 - Outcomes of a Delphi Consensus from the European School of Urology
AU - Gómez Rivas, Juan
AU - Somani, Bhaskar
AU - Rodriguez Socarrás, Moises
AU - Marra, Giancarlo
AU - Pearce, Ian
AU - Henningsohn, Lars
AU - Zondervan, Patricia
AU - van der Poel, Henk
AU - Van Poppel, Hendrik
AU - N'Dow, James
AU - Liatsikos, Evangelos
AU - Palou, Joan
AU - Stanisavljevic, Rade
AU - Nebojsa, Bojanic
AU - Banov, Pavel
AU - Spivak, Leonid
AU - Giannakopoulos, Stilianos
AU - Álvarez-Maestro, Mario
AU - Svihra, Jan
AU - Page, Tobias
AU - Yuruk, Emrah
AU - Silva-Ramos, Miguel
AU - Sarikaya, Saban
AU - Porpiglia, Francesco
AU - Szendroi, Attila
AU - a European School of Urology collaborative group
N1 - Funding/Support and role of the sponsor: None.
Acknowledgments: We want to acknowledge the European Association of Urology personnel dedicated to keeping this work going during the COVID-19 crisis.
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - Background: The burden of urological diseases is rising as the worldwide population ages. Although specialist urological provision is needed, a large proportion of these conditions will be managed in primary care. The importance of including urology in medical education currently remains unclear. Objective: To provide recommendations on undergraduate medical education for urology in Europe. Design, setting, and participants: A three-round Delphi process to reach consensus on standardising the undergraduate urology curriculum in Europe was endorsed by the European School of Urology. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The levels of agreement were set using a nine-point scale according to the GRADE grid: 1–3, disagree; 4–6, uncertain; and 7–9, agree. Consensus was defined as at least 70% of the participants scoring within the same 3-point grouping. Results and limitations: Overall, consensus was reached for 20 of 34 statements (70.5%) across the three Delphi rounds, with agreement for 75% (n = 15) and disagreement for 25% (n = 5). The following main points were agreed. Urological teaching should be introduced before year 5 of medical school, with at least 20 h of theoretical activities and at least 30 h of practical activities. Urology should be taught as a stand-alone subject rather than combined with another surgical specialty or a nephrology programme. The participants agreed that urology should be taught according to symptoms. A urology programme should include the anatomy and physiology of the urinary tract, and students should know how to clinically assess a urological patient. Conclusions: Our recommended urology pathway will allow European medical schools to provide a more comprehensive undergraduate urology curriculum. It will also help to improve and maintain standards of urology undergraduate teaching across Europe. Patient summary: Our survey showed that urology in universities should have, at minimum, time for theoretical and practical activities and should be taught as a stand-alone subject on the basis of symptoms. Students should give feedback to facilitate constant improvement and evolution of the teaching programme.
AB - Background: The burden of urological diseases is rising as the worldwide population ages. Although specialist urological provision is needed, a large proportion of these conditions will be managed in primary care. The importance of including urology in medical education currently remains unclear. Objective: To provide recommendations on undergraduate medical education for urology in Europe. Design, setting, and participants: A three-round Delphi process to reach consensus on standardising the undergraduate urology curriculum in Europe was endorsed by the European School of Urology. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The levels of agreement were set using a nine-point scale according to the GRADE grid: 1–3, disagree; 4–6, uncertain; and 7–9, agree. Consensus was defined as at least 70% of the participants scoring within the same 3-point grouping. Results and limitations: Overall, consensus was reached for 20 of 34 statements (70.5%) across the three Delphi rounds, with agreement for 75% (n = 15) and disagreement for 25% (n = 5). The following main points were agreed. Urological teaching should be introduced before year 5 of medical school, with at least 20 h of theoretical activities and at least 30 h of practical activities. Urology should be taught as a stand-alone subject rather than combined with another surgical specialty or a nephrology programme. The participants agreed that urology should be taught according to symptoms. A urology programme should include the anatomy and physiology of the urinary tract, and students should know how to clinically assess a urological patient. Conclusions: Our recommended urology pathway will allow European medical schools to provide a more comprehensive undergraduate urology curriculum. It will also help to improve and maintain standards of urology undergraduate teaching across Europe. Patient summary: Our survey showed that urology in universities should have, at minimum, time for theoretical and practical activities and should be taught as a stand-alone subject on the basis of symptoms. Students should give feedback to facilitate constant improvement and evolution of the teaching programme.
KW - Delphi consensus
KW - Education
KW - Undergraduate medical education
KW - Urology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122663288&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.euros.2021.09.003
DO - 10.1016/j.euros.2021.09.003
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85122663288
SN - 2666-1691
VL - 33
SP - 72
EP - 80
JO - European Urology Open Science
JF - European Urology Open Science
ER -