Practice Readiness? Trends in Chief Resident Case Logs vs Subsequent Case Log Data in Clinical Practice

Area of Science:

• Urology
• Surgical Education
• Medical Training

Background:

• Limited data exists on the relationship between urology resident surgical case experience and their case mix in independent practice.
• Understanding this transition is crucial for optimizing surgical training and future practice patterns.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the distribution of surgical procedures logged by urology residents during their chief year with the procedures performed in their first two years of independent practice.
• To identify differences in case mix between the end of residency and early career stages.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of case logs from 292 residents across 10 institutions, categorizing procedures into general urology, endourology, reconstructive urology, and urologic oncology.
• Utilized Current Procedural Terminology codes to query American Board of Urology data for cases performed during the chief year and the first two years of practice.
• Examined trends and interactions between chief year case logs and subsequent practice case logs over time.

Main Results:

• Chief residents logged a total of 104,827 cases, with urologic oncology being the most frequent, followed by general urology, endourology, and reconstructive urology.
• In the first two years of practice, 77,976 cases were logged, with general urology becoming the most frequent, followed by endourology, reconstructive urology, and urologic oncology.
• While chief year case logs showed decreasing trends in reconstructive urology, endourology, and general urology over time, practice case logs demonstrated increasing trends across all categories.

Conclusions:

• Urology residents perform a higher volume of cases during their chief year compared to their initial two years in independent practice.
• Significant differences exist in the types of procedures performed during the chief residency year versus subsequent clinical practice.
• These findings highlight potential areas for improvement in urology residency training, particularly in curriculum development to better align training with practice needs.