- Email: [email protected]
Commentary to ‘Pediatric urology fellowship training: are we teaching what they need to learn?’
322
C.P. Nelson
Commentary to ‘Pediatric urology fellowship training: are we teaching what they need to learn?’ Caleb P. Nelson * Urology, Children’s Hospital Boston, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA These authors have conducted an interesting surveybased study of pediatric urologists and their perception of how well their training prepared them for practice. They have done a good job ensuring a high response rate needed for survey research. Their findings show that, overall, pediatric urology graduates are receiving training in line with their practice needs, but also point out some areas for improvement. In particular, graduates feel unprepared for practice management and billing matters, which I suspect is the case for all physicians as they complete training and begin practice in the ‘real world’. The reassuring finding is
that newly minted pediatric urologists feel well prepared for the clinical conditions they will be seeing. Having said that, it should be remembered that believing oneself to be competent does not necessarily make one competent in reality. We might also point out that, since the authors did not classify fellows by specific program, there may be some duplication within their data, with certain programs being represented by multiple fellows. However, this is a limited problem since the brief 3-year time window for graduation limits the number of fellows surveyed who could have come from any one program.
* Tel.: þ1 6173553338; fax: þ1 6177300474. E-mail address: [email protected]. ª 2012 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.03.010
Commentary to ‘Pediatric urology fellowship training: are we teaching what they need to learn?’ Elizabeth B. Yerkes Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago (formerly known as Children’s Memorial Hospital), Chicago, IL, USA In this era of emphasis on ACGME requirements and competencies, the authors provide timely information about perceptions of our recent fellowship graduates on the educational experience that was delivered. While it is difficult to draw solid conclusions without a complete response rate, this information provides an excellent opportunity for introspection. As educators of sub-specialists, are we delivering the best package we can? Better stated, are we working with the learner to tailor the package to his or her specific needs? Each program, learner and mentor has unique strengths, weaknesses and goals. Are we creating a package that benefits the young pediatric urologist, the program and our specialty by making the most of both the clinical and non-clinical years? It was encouraging to see that the graduates value attending supervision and feedback, conferences and
reading. The authors bring up the important concept of ‘ownership’ as an adult learning tool. This can apply to fellow-directed multidisciplinary conferences, follow-up care, medical and professional aspects of taking care of a complication, coding and billing, etc. Looking at areas in which the graduates felt less prepared, we are reminded of the importance of time spent in the office learning everyday pediatric urology as well. As I was told by one of my mentors and he was told by his, ‘Who ever said you would see it all?’ True, but you have to be there to see it. Dedicated clinic time with a mix of apprenticeship and supervised independence is important. ‘This is the way we have always done it’ does not work in modern day GME, unless you were way ahead of the times. ‘It is what you make of it’ still applies, however, and the adult educator and adult learner need to take joint ownership in that process.
* Tel.: þ1 6173553338; fax: þ1 6177300474. E-mail address: [email protected]. ª 2012 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.04.007
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.03.015.
C.P. Nelson
Commentary to ‘Pediatric urology fellowship training: are we teaching what they need to learn?’ Caleb P. Nelson * Urology, Children’s Hospital Boston, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA These authors have conducted an interesting surveybased study of pediatric urologists and their perception of how well their training prepared them for practice. They have done a good job ensuring a high response rate needed for survey research. Their findings show that, overall, pediatric urology graduates are receiving training in line with their practice needs, but also point out some areas for improvement. In particular, graduates feel unprepared for practice management and billing matters, which I suspect is the case for all physicians as they complete training and begin practice in the ‘real world’. The reassuring finding is
that newly minted pediatric urologists feel well prepared for the clinical conditions they will be seeing. Having said that, it should be remembered that believing oneself to be competent does not necessarily make one competent in reality. We might also point out that, since the authors did not classify fellows by specific program, there may be some duplication within their data, with certain programs being represented by multiple fellows. However, this is a limited problem since the brief 3-year time window for graduation limits the number of fellows surveyed who could have come from any one program.
* Tel.: þ1 6173553338; fax: þ1 6177300474. E-mail address: [email protected]. ª 2012 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.03.010
Commentary to ‘Pediatric urology fellowship training: are we teaching what they need to learn?’ Elizabeth B. Yerkes Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago (formerly known as Children’s Memorial Hospital), Chicago, IL, USA In this era of emphasis on ACGME requirements and competencies, the authors provide timely information about perceptions of our recent fellowship graduates on the educational experience that was delivered. While it is difficult to draw solid conclusions without a complete response rate, this information provides an excellent opportunity for introspection. As educators of sub-specialists, are we delivering the best package we can? Better stated, are we working with the learner to tailor the package to his or her specific needs? Each program, learner and mentor has unique strengths, weaknesses and goals. Are we creating a package that benefits the young pediatric urologist, the program and our specialty by making the most of both the clinical and non-clinical years? It was encouraging to see that the graduates value attending supervision and feedback, conferences and
reading. The authors bring up the important concept of ‘ownership’ as an adult learning tool. This can apply to fellow-directed multidisciplinary conferences, follow-up care, medical and professional aspects of taking care of a complication, coding and billing, etc. Looking at areas in which the graduates felt less prepared, we are reminded of the importance of time spent in the office learning everyday pediatric urology as well. As I was told by one of my mentors and he was told by his, ‘Who ever said you would see it all?’ True, but you have to be there to see it. Dedicated clinic time with a mix of apprenticeship and supervised independence is important. ‘This is the way we have always done it’ does not work in modern day GME, unless you were way ahead of the times. ‘It is what you make of it’ still applies, however, and the adult educator and adult learner need to take joint ownership in that process.
* Tel.: þ1 6173553338; fax: þ1 6177300474. E-mail address: [email protected]. ª 2012 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.04.007
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.03.015.