Current exposure to Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery faculty during urology residency

• Published in: Neurourology and urodynamics Vol. 42; no. 7; pp. 1569 - 1573
• Main Authors: Wang, Connie N., Su, Irene W., Smith, Ariana L., Badalato, Gina M., Chung, Doreen E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.09.2023
• Subjects: Accreditation; fellowships and scholarships; Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery; graduate medical education; Pediatrics; Quality control; Reconstructive surgery; Reproductive health; Scholarships & fellowships; urogynecology; Urology; urology education; urology trends; United States > US; graduate medical education; Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery; urology education; urology trends; fellowships and scholarships; urogynecology
• ISSN: 0733-2467; 1520-6777
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.25247

Introduction Contemporary US resident exposure to Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) faculty during urology residency is unknown. Methods Accredited US urology residencies were identified through the American Urological Association (AUA). Accredited, urology‐based FPMRS fellowships were identified through the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction. The number of faculty and residency positions were obtained from program AUA profiles if they were last modified within the current application cycle; this information was obtained from program websites if AUA profiles were outdated. Data on faculty fellowship training was manually extracted from program websites. A quality control cross‐check of program and faculty training characteristics was performed through direct communication with 5% of programs. Results Of 139 accredited residency programs assessed, 10.8% were affiliated with an accredited, urology‐based FPMRS fellowship. In total, 29.5% of residency programs, representing 25% of US urology residents, had neither a FPMRS fellowship nor any FPMRS certified faculty. The national FPMRS faculty‐to‐resident ratio was 1:10.8, and 7.4% of faculty at all residency programs were FPMRS certified. In comparison, faculty‐to‐resident ratios for other subspecialties were: 1:4.7 for pediatrics, 1:3.6 for oncology, 1:5.9 for minimally invasive surgery/endourology, 1:14.2 for trauma/reconstruction, and 1:11.8 for andrology or male sexual/reproductive health. The FPMRS faculty‐to‐resident ratio was 1:5.1 in programs with a urology‐based FPMRS fellowship compared with 1:13.4 in programs without a FPMRS fellowship. Conclusions 30% of US urology residency programs lack FPMRS trained faculty. Even when FPMRS faculty are on staff, the field is often underrepresented relative to other urologic subspecialties. Further studies are required to ascertain if inadequate exposure to FPMRS cases and mentors during training contribute to the shortage of urology residents who choose to specialize in FPMRS. This link has important implications for the current shortage of FPMRS providers.