Premium
69
Are we succeeding in teaching urology and encouraging it as a career choice for future doctors?
Author(s) -
DIAS M.,
LIM K.,
TEMELCOS C.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2006.06085_69.x
Subject(s) - medicine , urology , specialty , prostatectomy , prostate cancer , gynecology , family medicine , cancer
Introduction: With Australia's ageing population, there will be increased demand for urologists and their services in the future. We examine students’ perceptions of urology, and identify factors influencing career choice. Methods: Questionnaires were distributed to 135 final year medical students. Respondents were asked questions regarding career interests and their perceptions of urology. Their exposure to common clinical problems, examinations, and procedures of the specialty were also assessed. Results: One hundred and seventeen questionnaires were completed (response rate 82%). 68% of respondents received less than 10 h structured teaching in urology. 45% were interested in a surgical career, with 35% of these in urology. 47% indicated males were more suited to a career in urology, and 53% indicated both genders were equally suited. Compared to other surgical specialties, respondents rated urology as being amongst the easiest to gain entry, involved the least hours worked and least intellectual stimulation. The two most typical problems thought to occupy an urologist's time were prostatomegaly and outlet obstruction (75%) and incontinence (57%). The two least typical areas were bladder cancer (71%) and other non‐prostate urological malignancies (89%). Only 43% of respondents ranked stone disease amongst the three most typical problems. 52% of respondents had seen a TURP, 19% a nephrectomy and 13% a radical prostatectomy. 41% were comfortable performing a scrotal examination, 58% for male catheterisation and 53% for rectal examination. Conclusion: Deficiencies are evident in students’ knowledge of and exposure to urology and this may have an impact on the recruitment of young doctors into the specialty.