Abstract
Urology is becoming increasingly reliant on inter-disciplinary collaboration. As a result of this interaction and developments in technology, the existing system of training, certification and recertification needs revision. The skill-set required of urologists has become multidimensional. As the field of urology continues to evolve, the recognition of the need for objective and efficient certification for trainees and a recertification program for specialists has increased. Training programs need to provide a curriculum focused on knowledge, communication, cognitive and technical skills, with the inclusion of simulation-based training. For specialists, the benefits of teaching through mentorship should be evaluated, and outcome-based assessment of patient morbidity and mortality needs to be further developed and validated.
Key Points
-
A competent urologist should be able to demonstrate excellence in patient safety, professionalism, team working, knowledge and technical skills
-
Certification and recertification are the processes within the medical profession that aim to ensure quality of patient care
-
Objective assessment of competence and continuing medical education should be closely linked during certification and recertification
-
Further research is required to identify and develop tools with the highest level of validity and reliability for training and assessment of technical and nontechnical skills
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Murray, A. Redesigning urological training and the consultant urologist. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. (Suppl.) 85, 314–317 (2003).
Risser, D. T. et al. The potential for improved teamwork to reduce medical errors in the emergency department: the MedTeams Research Consortium. Ann. Emerg. Med. 34, 373–383 (1999).
Reznick, R. K. & MacRae, H. Teaching surgical skills—changes in the wind. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 2664–2669 (2006).
Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M. & Donaldson, M. S. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System (Institute of Medicine, 1999).
The Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry. Learning from Bristol: the report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995 [online], (2001).
American Board of Medical Specialties. ABMS Maintenance of Certification [online], (2009).
CanMEDS. The CanMEDS 2005 Physician Competency Framework [online], (2005).
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. Revalidation [online], (2009).
Merkur, S., Mossialos, E., Long, M. & McKee, M. Physician revalidation in Europe. Clin. Med. 8, 371–376 (2008).
Epstein, R. M. & Hundert, E. M. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 287, 226–235 (2002).
Prystowsky, J. B., Bordage, G. & Feinglass, J. M. Patient outcomes for segmental colon resection according to surgeon's training, certification and experience. Surgery 132, 663–670 (2002).
Kohatsu, N. D., Gould, D. & Ross, L. K. Characteristics associated with physician discipline: a case–control study. Arch. Intern. Med. 164, 653–658 (2004).
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Surgical Competence and Performance [online], (2008).
Ahmed, K., Ashrafian, H., Hanna, G. B., Darzi, A. & Athanasiou, T. Assessment of specialists in cardiovascular practice. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 6, 659–667 (2009).
Stewart, M. A. Effective physician–patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ 152, 1423–1433 (1995).
Satava, R. M., Gallagher, A. G. & Pellegrini, C. A. Surgical competence and surgical proficiency: definitions, taxonomy, and metrics. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 196, 933–937 (2003).
GMC. Good Medical Practice [online], (2009).
National Patient Safety Agency. Junior Doctor [online], (2010).
Haynes, A. B. et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 491–499 (2009).
Makary, M. A. et al. Operating room teamwork among physicians and nurses: teamwork in the eye of the beholder. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 202, 746–752 (2006).
Vincent, C., Moorthy, K., Sarker, S. K., Chang, A. & Darzi, A. W. Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety: from concept to measurement. Ann. Surg. 239, 475–482 (2004).
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Sentinel Event Statistics [online], (2003).
Brewin, J. et al. Face, content and construct validation of the first virtual reality laparoscopic nephrectomy simulator. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09193.x.
Joyce, A. & Fawcett, D. Medical Revalidation. BAUS Strategy for Recertification [online], (2009).
Buyske, J. For the protection of the public and the good of the specialty: maintenance of certification. Arch. Surg. 144, 101–103 (2009).
Archer, J., Norcini, J., Southgate, L., Heard, S. & Davies, H. Mini-PAT (peer assessment tool): a valid component of a national assessment programme in the UK? Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 13, 181–192 (2008).
Nomura, H. Developing the “why” facet of medical professionalism. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 24, 31–34 (2008).
Simpson, M. et al. Doctor–patient communication: the Toronto consensus statement. BMJ 303, 1385–1387 (1991).
Nicholson, D. T., Chalk, C., Funnell, W. R. & Daniel, S. J. Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model. Med. Educ. 40, 1081–1087 (2006).
Undre, S., Healey, A. N., Darzi, A. & Vincent, C. A. Observational assessment of surgical teamwork: a feasibility study. World J. Surg. 30, 1774–1783 (2006).
Thomas, E. J. et al. Teamwork and quality during neonatal care in the delivery room. J. Perinatol. 26, 163–169 (2006).
Miller, L. A. Patient safety and teamwork in perinatal care: resources for clinicians. J. Perinat. Neonatal Nurs. 19, 46–51 (2005).
Morey, J. C. et al. Error reduction and performance improvement in the emergency department through formal teamwork training: evaluation results of the MedTeams project. Health Serv. Res. 37, 1553–1581 (2002).
Sherwood, G., Thomas, E., Bennett, D. S. & Lewis, P. A teamwork model to promote patient safety in critical care. Crit. Care Nurs. Clin. North Am. 14, 333–340 (2002).
Undre, S., Sevdalis, N., Healey, A. N., Darzi, S. A. & Vincent, C. A. Teamwork in the operating theater: cohesion or confusion? J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 12, 182–189 (2006).
Flin, R., Yule, S., McKenzie, L., Paterson-Brown, S. & Maran, N. Attitudes to teamwork and safety in the operating theatre. Surgeon 4, 145–151 (2006).
Flin, R., Fletcher, G., McGeorge, P., Sutherland, A. & Patey, R. Anaesthetists' attitudes to teamwork and safety. Anesthesia 58, 233–242 (2003).
Rao, A. R., Hudd, C., Laniado, M., Motiwala, H. & Karim, O. M. Left or right, get it right [abstract P132]. BJU Int. 95 (Suppl. 5), 96 (2005).
Coxon, J. P., Pattison, S. H., Parks, J. W., Stevenson, P. K. & Kirby, R. S. Reducing human error in urology: lessons from aviation. BJU Int. 91, 1–3 (2003).
Flin, R. et al. Teaching surgeons about non-technical skills. Surgeon 5, 86–89 (2007).
Sevdalis, N. et al. Reliability of a revised NOTECHS scale for use in surgical teams. Am. J. Surg. 196, 184–190 (2008).
Powers, K. A. et al. Simulated laparoscopic operating room crisis: an approach to enhance the surgical team performance. Surg. Endosc. 22, 885–900 (2008).
Davies, H. A. & Archer, J. C. Multi source feedback development and practical aspects. Clin. Teacher 2, 77–81 (2005).
Undre, S., Sevdalis, N., Healey, A. N., Darzi, A. & Vincent, C. A. Observational teamwork assessment for surgery (OTAS): refinement and application in urological surgery. World J. Surg. 31, 1373–1381 (2007).
Kurtz, S., Silverman, J., Benson, J. & Draper, J. Marrying content and process in clinical method teaching: enhancing the Calgary-Cambridge guides. Acad. Med. 78, 802–809 (2003).
Makoul, G. Essential elements of communication in medical encounters: the Kalamazoo consensus statement. Acad. Med. 76, 390–393 (2001).
Violato, C., Lockyer, J. & Fidler, H. Multisource feedback: a method of assessing surgical practice. BMJ 326, 546–548 (2003).
Watters, D. A., Green, A. J. & van Rij, A. Guidelines for surgical audit in Australia and New Zealand. ANZ J. Surg. 76, 78–83 (2006).
Crossley, J. et al. Can a district hospital assess its doctors for re-licensure? Med. Educ. 42, 359–363 (2008).
Dickinson, I., Watters, D., Graham, I., Montgomery, P. & Collins, J. Guide to the assessment of competence and performance in practising surgeons. ANZ J. Surg. 79, 198–204 (2009).
Marinopoulos, S. S. et al. Effectiveness of continuing medical education. Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess. (Full Rep.) 149, 1–69 (2007).
Reznick, R., Regehr, G., MacRae, H., Martin, J. & McCulloch, W. Testing technical skill via an innovative “bench station” examination. Am. J. Surg. 173, 226–230 (1997).
Yap, C. H., Colson, M. E. & Watters, D. A. Cumulative sum techniques for surgeons: a brief review. ANZ J. Surg. 77, 583–586 (2007).
Royal College of Surgeons. Specialty Programmes: Urology [online], (2010).
Baverstock, R. J., MacNeily, A. E. & Cole, G. The American Urological Association In-Service Examination: performance correlates with Canadian and American specialty examinations. J. Urol. 170, 527–529 (2003).
Rassweiler, J., Klein, J., Teber, D., Schulze, M. & Frede, T. Mechanical simulators for training for laparoscopic surgery in urology. J. Endourol. 21, 252–262 (2007).
Moorthy, K., Munz, Y., Sarker, S. K. & Darzi, A. Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery. BMJ 327, 1032–1037 (2003).
Chou, D. S., Abdelshehid, C., Clayman, R. V. & McDougall, E. M. Comparison of results of virtual-reality simulator and training model for basic ureteroscopy training. J. Endourol. 20, 266–271 (2006).
Watterson, J. D., Beiko, D. T., Kuan, J. K. & Denstedt, J. D. Randomized prospective blinded study validating acquistion of ureteroscopy skills using computer based virtual reality endourological simulator. J. Urol. 168, 1928–1932 (2002).
Knudsen, B. E. et al. A randomized, controlled, prospective study validating the acquisition of percutaneous renal collecting system access skills using a computer based hybrid virtual reality surgical simulator: phase I. J. Urol. 176, 2173–2178 (2006).
Aggarwal, R., Grantcharov, T., Moorthy, K., Milland, T. & Darzi, A. Toward feasible, valid, and reliable video-based assessments of technical surgical skills in the operating room. Ann. Surg. 247, 372–379 (2008).
Sambunjak, D., Straus, S. E. & Marusic, A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA 296, 1103–1115 (2006).
Shah, J. & Darzi, A. Surgical skills assessment: an ongoing debate. BJU Int. 88, 655–660 (2001).
Martin, J. A. et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br. J. Surg. 84, 273–278 (1997).
Beard, J. D., Choksy, S. & Khan, S. Assessment of operative competence during carotid endarterectomy. Br. J. Surg. 94, 726–730 (2007).
Datta, V., Mackay, S., Mandalia, M. & Darzi, A. The use of electromagnetic motion tracking analysis to objectively measure open surgical skill in the laboratory-based model. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 193, 479–485 (2001).
Fraser, S. A. et al. Evaluating laparoscopic skills: setting the pass/fail score for the MISTELS system. Surg. Endosc. 17, 964–967 (2003).
Katz, R. et al. Skill assessment of urological laparoscopic surgeons: can criterion levels of surgical performance be determined using the pelvic box trainer? Eur. Urol. 47, 482–487 (2005).
Brehmer, M. & Tolley, D. Validation of a bench model for endoscopic surgery in the upper urinary tract. Eur. Urol. 42, 175–180 (2002).
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Surgical Competence and Performance [online], (2008).
BAUS. British Association of Urological Surgeons. Data & Audit Project [online], (2009).
Collins, J. P., Civil, I. D., Sugrue, M., Balogh, Z. & Chehade, M. J. Surgical education and training in Australia and New Zealand. World J. Surg. 32, 2138–2144 (2008).
van der Vleuten, C. P. M. The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 1, 41–67 (1996).
Ahmed, K. et al. Role of virtual reality simulation in teaching and assessing technical skills in endovascular intervention. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 21, 55–66 (2010).
Allen, I. Doctors crossing borders: Europe's new reality. CMAJ 180, 158–161 (2009).
The European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council: of 29 April 2004 [online], (2004).
Watterson, J. D. & Denstedt, J. D. Ureteroscopy and cystoscopy simulation in urology. J. Endourol. 21, 263–269 (2007).
Wong, J. A. & Matsumoto, E. D. Primer: cognitive motor learning for teaching surgical skill—how are surgical skills taught and assessed? Nat. Clin. Pract. Urol. 5, 47–54 (2008).
Sweet, R. M. Review of trainers for transurethral resection of the prostate skills. J. Endourol. 21, 280–284 (2007).
Hruby, G. W. et al. The EZ Trainer: validation of a portable and inexpensive simulator for training basic laparoscopic skills. J. Urol. 179, 662–666 (2008).
Zhang, Y. et al. Novel biologic model for percutaneous renal surgery learning and training in the laboratory. Urology 72, 513–516 (2008).
Matsumoto, E. D., Hamstra, S. J., Radomski, S. B. & Cusimano, M. D. A novel approach to endourological training: training at the Surgical Skills Center. J. Urol. 166, 1261–1266 (2001).
Shah, J., Munz, Y., Manson, J., Moorthy, K. & Darzi, A. Objective assessment of small bowel anastomosis skill in trainee general surgeons and urologists. World J. Surg. 30, 248–251 (2006).
Brehmer, M. & Swartz, R. Training on bench models improves dexterity in ureteroscopy. Eur. Urol. 48, 458–463 (2005).
Yang, R. M. & Bellman, G. C. Laparoscopic urethrovesical anastomosis: a model to assess surgical competency. J. Endourol. 20, 679–682 (2006).
Grober, E. D. et al. Laboratory based training in urological microsurgery with bench model simulators: a randomized controlled trial evaluating the durability of technical skill. J. Urol. 172, 378–381 (2004).
Chatterjee, S., Radomski, S. B. & Matsumoto, E. D. Durability of endourologic skills: two-year follow-up study. J. Endourol. 21, 843–846 (2007).
Traxer, O. et al. The impact of intense laparoscopic skills training on the operative performance of urology residents. J. Urol. 166, 1658–1661 (2001).
Subramonian, K., DeSylva, S., Bishai, P., Thompson, P. & Muir, G. Acquiring surgical skills: a comparative study of open versus laparoscopic surgery. Eur. Urol. 45, 346–351 (2004).
Ogan, K. et al. Virtual ureteroscopy predicts ureteroscopic proficiency of medical students on a cadaver. J. Urol. 172, 667–671 (2004).
Matsumoto, E. D., Pace, K. T. & D'A Honey, R. J. Virtual reality ureteroscopy simulator as a valid tool for assessing endourological skills. Int. J. Urol. 13, 896–901 (2006).
Jacomides, L., Ogan, K., Cadeddu, J. A. & Pearle, M. S. Use of a virtual reality simulator for ureteroscopy training. J. Urol. 171, 320–323 (2004).
Sweet, R., Kowalewski, T., Oppenheimer, P., Weghorst, S. & Satava, R. Face, content and construct validity of the University of Washington virtual reality transurethral prostate resection trainer. J. Urol. 172, 1953–1957 (2004).
Reich, O. et al. High-level virtual reality simulator for endourologic procedures of lower urinary tract. Urology 67, 1144–1148 (2006).
Matsumoto, E. D. et al. Assessment of basic human performance resources predicts performance of ureteroscopy. Am. J. Surg. 191, 817–820 (2006).
Knoll, T., Trojan, L., Haecker, A., Alken, P. & Michel, M. S. Validation of computer-based training in ureterorenoscopy. BJU Int. 95, 1276–1279 (2005).
Shah, J., Montgomery, B., Langley, S. & Darzi, A. Validation of a flexible cystoscopy course. BJU Int. 90, 833–835 (2002).
Acknowledgements
A. Darzi and T. Athanasiou acknowledge their role in the Revalidation Project, which is funded by the UK General Medical Council and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. This article reflects these authors' views only, based on their research conducted at Imperial College London, UK. P. Dasgupta acknowledges financial research support from the Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) comprehensive Biomedical Research Center award to Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ahmed, K., Jawad, M., Dasgupta, P. et al. Assessment and maintenance of competence in urology. Nat Rev Urol 7, 403–413 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.81
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.81
This article is cited by
-
Recent Advances in Surgical Simulation For Resident Education
Current Urology Reports (2023)
-
Medical students’ perception of simulation-based assessment in emergency and paediatric medicine: a focus group study
BMC Medical Education (2021)
-
Challenges of Training General Surgery Residents to Do Urology in the Developing World
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports (2018)
-
Development and validation of a tool for non-technical skills evaluation in robotic surgery—the ICARS system
Surgical Endoscopy (2017)