The New PGY-1 Year: Lessons Learned

• Published in: Current urology reports Vol. 21; no. 10; p. 42
• Main Authors: Xu, Alex J., Drain, Alice E., Gonzalez, Ashley N., Kanofsky, Jamie A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 19.08.2020
• Subjects: Clinical Competence; Education (G Badalato; Humans; Internship and Residency - methods; Internship and Residency - standards; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nephrology; Personnel Staffing and Scheduling; Section Editor; Topical Collection on Education; Urology; Urology - education; Workload; Integration; Intern; Education; Residency; PGY-1
• ISSN: 1527-2737; 1534-6285
• DOI: 10.1007/s11934-020-00996-x

Purpose of Review Describe the ACGME’s changes to the PGY-1 year in urology and discuss the benefits and challenges faced by training programs. Recent Findings There are no publications detailing the integration of the PGY-1 year in urology; however, response of other surgical subspecialties to their own integration has been studied. Summary Benefits of integration include earlier exposure to techniques and knowledge specific to urology, potentially leading to increased preparedness for next steps in training and exams. Program directors have more flexibility to select rotations relevant to urology. Resident wellness may be improved as interns are incorporated into the department earlier and can help distribute the workload for senior residents. Challenges include decreased exposure to basic surgical knowledge and skills, decreased camaraderie with general surgery colleagues, and difficulties associated with evaluating interns who are spending limited time with urology departments. Overall, the change seems to have a positive impact on urological training.