The European Urology Residents Education Programme Hands-on Training Format: 4 Years of Hands-on Training Improvements from the European School of Urology
Abstract
The European Urology Residents Education Programme hands-on training format provides a framework on how to design courses with precourse material, a 1:1 trainee/tutor ratio, 60-min training slots, and dedicated training protocols. Our paper demonstrates the continued collaboration of the European School of Urology with national societies and the wider dissemination of simulation training worldwide. (C) 2018 European Association of UrologyBackground: The European School of Urology (ESU) started the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) in 2003 for final year urology residents, with hands-on training (HOT) added later in 2007.
Objective: To assess the geographical reach of EUREP, trainee demographics, and individual quality feedback in relation to annual methodology improvements in HOT. Design, setting, and participants: From September 2014 to October 2017 (four EUREP courses) several new features have been applied to the HOT format of the EUREP course: 1:1 training sessions (2015), fixed 60-min time slots (2016), and standardised teaching methodology (2017).
The resulting EUREP HOT format was verified by collecting and prospectively analysing the following data: total number of participants attending different HOT courses; participants' age; country of origin; and feedback obtained annually. Results and limitations: A total of 796 participants from 54 countries participated in 1450 HOT sessions over the last 4 yr.
This included 294 (20%) ureteroscopy (URS) sessions, 237 (16.5%) transurethral resection (TUR) sessions, 840 (58%) basic laparoscopic sessions, and 79 (5.5%) intermediate laparoscopic sessions. While 712 residents (89%) were from Europe, 84 (11%) were from non-European nations.
Of the European residents, most came from Italy (16%), Germany (15%), Spain (15%), and Romania (8%). Feedback for the basic laparoscopic session showed a constant improvement in scores over the last 4 yr, with the highest scores achieved last year.
This included feedback on improvements in tutor rating (p = 0.017), organisation (p < 0.001), and personal experience with EUREP (p < 0.001). Limitations lie in the difficulties associated with the use of an advanced training curriculum with wet laboratory or cadaveric courses in this format, although these could be performed in other training centres in conjunction with EUREP.
Conclusions: The EUREP trainee demographics show that the purpose of the course is being achieved, with excellent feedback reported. While European trainees dominate the demographics, participation from a number of non-European countries suggests continued ESU collaboration with other national societies and wider dissemination of simulation training worldwide.
Patient summary: In this paper we look at methodological improvements and feedback for the European Urology Residents Education Programme hands-on-training over the last 4 yr.