Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India
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 residen...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Pandey, Siddharth [verfasserIn] Goel, Apul [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Indian Journal of Surgery - Springer-Verlag, 2007, 82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:82 ; year:2019 ; number:2 ; day:04 ; month:07 ; pages:157-162 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR039660516 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR039660516 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20201126010949.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201007s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR039660516 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s12262-019-01907-2-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Pandey, Siddharth |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a 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. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Urology training |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Residency |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Learning |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Intimidation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Feedback |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Urology |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Goel, Apul |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Indian Journal of Surgery |d Springer-Verlag, 2007 |g 82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162 |w (DE-627)SPR024596493 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:82 |g year:2019 |g number:2 |g day:04 |g month:07 |g pages:157-162 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 82 |j 2019 |e 2 |b 04 |c 07 |h 157-162 | ||
| author_variant |
s p sp a g ag |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
pandeysiddharthgoelapul:2019----:eietfebcofclynwrigniomnterlg |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2019 |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 doi (DE-627)SPR039660516 (SPR)s12262-019-01907-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Pandey, Siddharth verfasserin aut Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Urology training (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intimidation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Urology (dpeaa)DE-He213 Goel, Apul verfasserin aut Enthalten in Indian Journal of Surgery Springer-Verlag, 2007 82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162 (DE-627)SPR024596493 nnns volume:82 year:2019 number:2 day:04 month:07 pages:157-162 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 82 2019 2 04 07 157-162 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 doi (DE-627)SPR039660516 (SPR)s12262-019-01907-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Pandey, Siddharth verfasserin aut Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Urology training (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intimidation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Urology (dpeaa)DE-He213 Goel, Apul verfasserin aut Enthalten in Indian Journal of Surgery Springer-Verlag, 2007 82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162 (DE-627)SPR024596493 nnns volume:82 year:2019 number:2 day:04 month:07 pages:157-162 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 82 2019 2 04 07 157-162 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 doi (DE-627)SPR039660516 (SPR)s12262-019-01907-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Pandey, Siddharth verfasserin aut Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Urology training (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intimidation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Urology (dpeaa)DE-He213 Goel, Apul verfasserin aut Enthalten in Indian Journal of Surgery Springer-Verlag, 2007 82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162 (DE-627)SPR024596493 nnns volume:82 year:2019 number:2 day:04 month:07 pages:157-162 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 82 2019 2 04 07 157-162 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 doi (DE-627)SPR039660516 (SPR)s12262-019-01907-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Pandey, Siddharth verfasserin aut Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Urology training (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intimidation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Urology (dpeaa)DE-He213 Goel, Apul verfasserin aut Enthalten in Indian Journal of Surgery Springer-Verlag, 2007 82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162 (DE-627)SPR024596493 nnns volume:82 year:2019 number:2 day:04 month:07 pages:157-162 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 82 2019 2 04 07 157-162 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 doi (DE-627)SPR039660516 (SPR)s12262-019-01907-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Pandey, Siddharth verfasserin aut Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Urology training (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intimidation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Urology (dpeaa)DE-He213 Goel, Apul verfasserin aut Enthalten in Indian Journal of Surgery Springer-Verlag, 2007 82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162 (DE-627)SPR024596493 nnns volume:82 year:2019 number:2 day:04 month:07 pages:157-162 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 82 2019 2 04 07 157-162 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Indian Journal of Surgery 82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162 volume:82 year:2019 number:2 day:04 month:07 pages:157-162 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Indian Journal of Surgery 82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162 volume:82 year:2019 number:2 day:04 month:07 pages:157-162 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Urology training Residency Learning Intimidation Feedback Urology |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Indian Journal of Surgery |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Pandey, Siddharth @@aut@@ Goel, Apul @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2019-07-04T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
SPR024596493 |
| id |
SPR039660516 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR039660516</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20201126010949.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR039660516</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12262-019-01907-2-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pandey, Siddharth</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Urology training</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Residency</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Learning</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Intimidation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Feedback</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Urology</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Goel, Apul</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Indian Journal of Surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR024596493</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:82</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:04</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:157-162</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">82</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">04</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">157-162</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Pandey, Siddharth |
| spellingShingle |
Pandey, Siddharth misc Urology training misc Residency misc Learning misc Intimidation misc Feedback misc Urology Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India |
| authorStr |
Pandey, Siddharth |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)SPR024596493 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India Urology training (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residency (dpeaa)DE-He213 Learning (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intimidation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Feedback (dpeaa)DE-He213 Urology (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Urology training misc Residency misc Learning misc Intimidation misc Feedback misc Urology |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Urology training misc Residency misc Learning misc Intimidation misc Feedback misc Urology |
| topic_browse |
misc Urology training misc Residency misc Learning misc Intimidation misc Feedback misc Urology |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Indian Journal of Surgery |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
SPR024596493 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Indian Journal of Surgery |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)SPR024596493 |
| title |
Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR039660516 (SPR)s12262-019-01907-2-e |
| title_full |
Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India |
| author_sort |
Pandey, Siddharth |
| journal |
Indian Journal of Surgery |
| journalStr |
Indian Journal of Surgery |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2019 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
157 |
| author_browse |
Pandey, Siddharth Goel, Apul |
| container_volume |
82 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Pandey, Siddharth |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
residents feedback on faculty and working environment: the urology training program in india |
| title_auth |
Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India |
| abstract |
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. |
| abstractGer |
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. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
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. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Goel, Apul |
| author2Str |
Goel, Apul |
| ppnlink |
SPR024596493 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T00:58:29.933Z |
| _version_ |
1803608087524802560 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR039660516</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20201126010949.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR039660516</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12262-019-01907-2-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pandey, Siddharth</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Residents Feedback on Faculty and Working Environment: the Urology Training Program in India</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Urology training</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Residency</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Learning</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Intimidation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Feedback</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Urology</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Goel, Apul</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Indian Journal of Surgery</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">82(2019), 2 vom: 04. Juli, Seite 157-162</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR024596493</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:82</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:04</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:157-162</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12262-019-01907-2</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">82</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">04</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">157-162</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400959 |