Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of our study was to know the residents’ feedback regarding urology residency in India. Such information is presently scarce. The feedback included evaluating domains like faculty participation in academic activities and resident-friendly learning workplace. It also asked residents what change they wished to see in faculty and an overall rating of their residency program. An online survey was conducted using SurveyMonkey® platform. E-mails with an online link to survey were sent to 1469 associate members of Urological Society of India. There were 12 queries. The responses between residents in M.Ch. and D.N.B. programs, the two officially recognized teaching programs in India, were also compared. Seventy-eight current residents or those who completed residency within 1 year finished the survey. The unfavorable responses towards faculty involvement in academic activities, teaching and creating a friendly work place varied from 20 to 30% for most questions. When asked about what change in faculty the residents wanted, 45.5% reported “better involvement in teaching” followed by creation of a friendly workplace environment (37%). The overall mean satisfaction rating with the program on a scale of 0–100 was 66.04 ± 22.51. The responses of residents from the M.Ch. and D.N.B. programs were similar (p > 0.05). Our results provide some insight on the resident’s perspective of their training/teaching programs in Indian urology centers. Although, a comprehensive validated questionnaire was not used but our observations can be used to improve the learning of students doing residency in urology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Newble DI, Cannon RA (2001) Helping students learn. A handbook for medical teachers, vol 2001, 4th edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, pp 5–7

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aggarwal R, Gogtay N, Kumar R, Sahni P (2016) The revised guidelines of the Medical Council of India for academic promotions: need for a rethink. Indian J Urol 32:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aron M (2009) Urology training in India: balancing national needs with global perspectives. Indian J Urol 25:254–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gopalakrishnan G (2009) Urological education in India: a status report. Indian J Urol 25(2):251–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gappa JM, Austin AE, Trice AG (2007) Rethinking faculty work: higher education’s strategic imperative. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  6. Neacy K, Stern SA, Kim HM, Dronen SC (2000) Resident perception of academic skills training and impact on academic career choice. Acad Emerg Med 7(12):1408–1415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Karim S, Duchcherer M (2014) Intimidation and harassment in residency: a review of the literature and results of the 2012 Canadian Association of Interns and Residents National Survey. Can Med Educ J 5(1):e50–e57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fraser K, Clarke G, Hager B, Katzman J, Washinsky M, Brown C (2014) Residents and faculty work together to reduce faculty intimidation of residents and improve morale. Acad Psychiatry 38(2):217–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dictionaries EOL (2018) Word of the year 2018 is... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2018. Accessed 15 Dec 2018

  10. Wherry DC, Rob CG, Marohn MR, Rich NM (1994) An external audit of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in medical treatment facilities of the department of Defense. Ann Surg 220(5):626–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’brien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236(4):458–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Satava RM, Sherk HH (2006) Virtual reality surgical simulator-the first steps. Clin Orthop Relat Res (442):2–4

  13. Cocci A, Patruno G, Gandaglia G, Rizzo M, Esperto F, Parnanzini D, Pietropaolo A, Principi E, Talso M, Baldesi R (2018) Urology residency training in Italy: results of the first national survey. Eur Urol Focus 4(2):280–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mazzei A, Ravazzani S (2011) Manager-employee communication during a crisis: the missing link. Corp Commun Int J 16(3):243–254. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281111156899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Knowles MS (1980) The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy. Prentice Hall/Cambridge, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goel A, Kumar S (2018) Need for correction. The equation between teacher and adult learner in India. Indian J Urol 34(3):165–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sokhal AK, Gupta P, Goel A, Goel S, Singh K (2018) Identification of essential surgical competencies to be imparted in urological residency: a survey-based study. Indian J Urol 34(3):196–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, 226003, India

    Siddharth Pandey & Apul Goel

Authors
  1. Siddharth Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Apul Goel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Apul Goel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

  1. 1.

    Are you a Urology resident in training or passed residency within 1 year?

◦Yes

◦No

  1. 2.

    What is your age group?

◦25–29 years

◦30–34 years

◦35–39 years

◦> 40 years

  1. 3.

    What is your sex?

◦Male

◦Female

  1. 4.

    What course are you pursuing

◦M.Ch.

◦D.N.B.

  1. 5.

    Which year of training are you in

◦1st

◦2nd

◦3rd

◦Passed within 1 year

  1. 6.

    Your training center is located in which zone of the country

◦North

◦East

◦West

◦South

  1. 7.

    How satisfied are you with involvement of your faculty in resident academic activities (Seminars, Jourbal Clubs, Morbidity meets etc.) at your center?

◦Very Satisfied

◦Satisfied

◦Neither

◦Dissatisfied

◦Very Dissatisfied

  1. 8.

    How satisfied are you with your faculty's involvement in teaching at bedside ward rounds/OPDs

◦Very Satisfied

◦Satisfied

◦Neither

◦Dissatisfied

◦Very Dissatisfied

  1. 9.

    How comfortable are you while taking up your problems (related to patient management, work environment, administrative issues etc.) to your faculty?

◦Extremely

◦Very Much

◦Somewhat

◦A little

◦None at all

  1. 10.

    How friendly would you rate the overall working environment at your training center?

◦Extremely

◦Very Much

◦Somewhat

◦A little

◦None at all

  1. 11.

    What according to you needs to be improved in your faculty?

◦Involvement in resident academics

◦Involvement in ward / OPD teaching

◦Communication with residents

◦Creation of friendly work environment for resident training

◦Others (Please mention)

  1. 12.

    On a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being completely satisfied and 0 not satisfied at all, how satisfied are you with the training program at your center?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pandey, S., Goel, A. Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India. Indian J Surg 82, 157–162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation