Urologia internationalis · 2026
Structured Feedback Tools in Surgical Training: Results of the Endo-Workshop of the German Society of Residents in Urology 2024.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaulfuss Julia C, Kluth Luis A, Reimann Maximilian, Plage Henning, Becker Benedikt, Beck Andreas, Ullmann Maha, Filipas Dejan K, Fisch Margit, Schlomm Thorsten, Chun Felix K H, Schäfer Timm, Meyer Christian P, Siech Carolin
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the need for structured feedback in urological residency training, we compared two assessment tools - Global Rating Scale (GRS) and Global Assessment of Urological Endoscopic Skills (GAUES) - during the 2024 Endo-Workshop of the German Society of Residents in Urology (GeSRU).
METHODS: The workshop included simulation training on ureterorenoscopy (URS), transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB), and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Feedback was provided using GRS and GAUES. An online survey assessed the need for structured feedback. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation were used.
RESULTS: Among 15 participants, 53% were female, and 60% were early-stage residents. All expressed a desire for feedback, though only 73% had previously received unstructured feedback. Mean scores on GRS were 26 (URS), 28 (TURB), and 25 (TURP); on GAUES: 32, 37, and 33 (max 58). GRS and GAUES scores correlated positively (URS: ρ = 0.85; TURB: 0.5; TURP: 0.54). Post-workshop, 93% rated structured feedback as helpful. Most participants found GAUES (86%) and GRS (79%) specific and useful for training.
CONCLUSION: Structured assessments like GRS and GAUES show strong potential to improve endourological training. GAUES demonstrates value as a task-specific tool. Continuous evaluation of such tools is essential for high-quality surgical education and patient care.
METHODS: The workshop included simulation training on ureterorenoscopy (URS), transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB), and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Feedback was provided using GRS and GAUES. An online survey assessed the need for structured feedback. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation were used.
RESULTS: Among 15 participants, 53% were female, and 60% were early-stage residents. All expressed a desire for feedback, though only 73% had previously received unstructured feedback. Mean scores on GRS were 26 (URS), 28 (TURB), and 25 (TURP); on GAUES: 32, 37, and 33 (max 58). GRS and GAUES scores correlated positively (URS: ρ = 0.85; TURB: 0.5; TURP: 0.54). Post-workshop, 93% rated structured feedback as helpful. Most participants found GAUES (86%) and GRS (79%) specific and useful for training.
CONCLUSION: Structured assessments like GRS and GAUES show strong potential to improve endourological training. GAUES demonstrates value as a task-specific tool. Continuous evaluation of such tools is essential for high-quality surgical education and patient care.