Contact ProfileSearch

Needs & Objectives

Society of Academic Urologists
2020 Program Directors, Coordinators & Academicians Meeting

January 24 – 25, 2020
Aria Resort & Casino
Las Vegas, Nevada

Educational Needs

Urological education continues to evolve and, as such, continuing education is required for program directors and program administrators. Since 2011, the Next Accreditation System (NAS) has managed to introduce several new requirements, such as the common core requirements as well as a possible restructuring of the intern year for incoming urology trainees. Most program directors and coordinators are unfamiliar with these developments and will need help in understanding and modifying the structure of their residency training programs.

The development, evaluation, and assessment processes for resident training in urology requires continuous learning and involves a team approach, including faculty, residents and fellows, other healthcare colleagues, and administrators. Program directors and program coordinators are not only responsible for teaching these stakeholders, but they need to be updated on the relevant material for improving their programs. The SAU Program Directors, Coordinators & Academicians Meeting is a forum for networking and sharing best national practices. Each member of the team needs to be a “learner” in these evolving processes and to understand the concepts behind and discover practical and thoughtful tools to develop a dynamic program for their trainees approach. Program administrators are essential to understanding the concepts and assist in implementing the new policies and concepts. Collaborative discussion among the attendees will foster an understanding how to develop an individualized approach to the implementation of best practices and flexibility for future advancements.

Educational Objectives

At the conclusion of the 2020 SAU Program Directors, Coordinators & Academicians Meeting, attendees will be able to:

  1. Identify the current and future changes to the Urology Milestones as described by the Urology RRC.
  2. Further discuss the future of urology educational curriculum as well as new educational tools that can be employed to improve the feedback & evaluation process and refine urology residency education.
  3. Explain new approaches to residency assessment including available tools.
  4. Identify the challenges that have been encountered with the the PGY-1 curriculum and its implementation since urology residencies transitioned to controling PGY1 residents.
  5. Analyze and describe the strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities for improving residency training in the United States.
  6. Discuss the challenges of getting urologists to practice in rural areas.
  7. Develop awareness of the need for medical school level training in urology and how to develop urology curricula at that level.
  8. Recognize the challenges of bias and harassment in the training environment.
  9. Discuss how to develop a culture of patient safety and quality improvement in residency training.
  10. Identify the need for and development of Urologic ultrasound training in residency.
  11. Discuss the big picture of funding of training programs including salary support through the school and departmental fiscal commitment.