Routine neonatal circumcision

Opportunities for improving residency training

Brian Le*, Vidit Sharma, Dae Kim, James Dupree, Max Maizels

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Primary care physicians are the routine providers of neonatal circumcision, yet urologists commonly manage the complications. We previously identified a need for improved formalized training in neonatal circumcisions among ob-gyn residents. Here we extend the needs assessment to urology residents. Methods: From Nov 2008 to Nov 2009, ob-gyn and urology residents at our institution were given an online survey to assess comfort, education, and proficiency in pre-operative evaluation and performance of circumcisions. Results: 26/35 (74%) ob-gyn and 12/17 (65%) urology residents responded to the survey. 62% of ob-gyn and 33% of urology residents intended to perform neonatal circumcisions in practice. Both groups described having little formal training in neonatal circumcision. Ob-gyn residents felt more comfortable than urology residents in performing neonatal circumcisions [mean 5.9 vs. 4.3, p = 0.001; 1 (very uncomfortable) - 7 (very comfortable)], though urology residents' comfort level increased with resident year. Ob-gyn residents felt less comfortable than urology residents (mean 3.9 vs. 5.1, p = 0.031) evaluating if a newborn penis may undergo circumcision safely. Urology residents performed better than ob-gyn residents at identifying contraindications to routine circumcision from 10 scenarios (mean 63% vs. 42% p < 0.001). Both felt that an online module was a good alternative to practical experience. Conclusions: At our institution, ob-gyn and urology residents have little formalized training in neonatal circumcision. While ob-gyn residents are comfortable performing circumcisions, they feel less comfortable evaluating the newborn penis and correctly managed fewer scenarios than did urology residents. This highlights the need for further curriculum development and formalized training.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)605-608
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Pediatric Urology
Volume9
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2013

Fingerprint

Urology
Internship and Residency
Penis
Newborn Infant
Needs Assessment
Primary Care Physicians
Curriculum
Education

Keywords

  • Circumcision
  • Curriculum
  • Education
  • Hypospadias
  • Residency training

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

Le, Brian ; Sharma, Vidit ; Kim, Dae ; Dupree, James ; Maizels, Max. / Routine neonatal circumcision : Opportunities for improving residency training. In: Journal of Pediatric Urology. 2013 ; Vol. 9, No. 5. pp. 605-608.
@article{410e95c8b28a431d81b01b73767238c6,
title = "Routine neonatal circumcision: Opportunities for improving residency training",
abstract = "Objectives: Primary care physicians are the routine providers of neonatal circumcision, yet urologists commonly manage the complications. We previously identified a need for improved formalized training in neonatal circumcisions among ob-gyn residents. Here we extend the needs assessment to urology residents. Methods: From Nov 2008 to Nov 2009, ob-gyn and urology residents at our institution were given an online survey to assess comfort, education, and proficiency in pre-operative evaluation and performance of circumcisions. Results: 26/35 (74{\%}) ob-gyn and 12/17 (65{\%}) urology residents responded to the survey. 62{\%} of ob-gyn and 33{\%} of urology residents intended to perform neonatal circumcisions in practice. Both groups described having little formal training in neonatal circumcision. Ob-gyn residents felt more comfortable than urology residents in performing neonatal circumcisions [mean 5.9 vs. 4.3, p = 0.001; 1 (very uncomfortable) - 7 (very comfortable)], though urology residents' comfort level increased with resident year. Ob-gyn residents felt less comfortable than urology residents (mean 3.9 vs. 5.1, p = 0.031) evaluating if a newborn penis may undergo circumcision safely. Urology residents performed better than ob-gyn residents at identifying contraindications to routine circumcision from 10 scenarios (mean 63{\%} vs. 42{\%} p < 0.001). Both felt that an online module was a good alternative to practical experience. Conclusions: At our institution, ob-gyn and urology residents have little formalized training in neonatal circumcision. While ob-gyn residents are comfortable performing circumcisions, they feel less comfortable evaluating the newborn penis and correctly managed fewer scenarios than did urology residents. This highlights the need for further curriculum development and formalized training.",
keywords = "Circumcision, Curriculum, Education, Hypospadias, Residency training",
author = "Brian Le and Vidit Sharma and Dae Kim and James Dupree and Max Maizels",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.05.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "605--608",
journal = "Journal of Pediatric Urology",
issn = "1477-5131",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "5",

}

Routine neonatal circumcision : Opportunities for improving residency training. / Le, Brian; Sharma, Vidit; Kim, Dae; Dupree, James; Maizels, Max.

In: Journal of Pediatric Urology, Vol. 9, No. 5, 01.10.2013, p. 605-608.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Routine neonatal circumcision

T2 - Opportunities for improving residency training

AU - Le, Brian

AU - Sharma, Vidit

AU - Kim, Dae

AU - Dupree, James

AU - Maizels, Max

PY - 2013/10/1

Y1 - 2013/10/1

N2 - Objectives: Primary care physicians are the routine providers of neonatal circumcision, yet urologists commonly manage the complications. We previously identified a need for improved formalized training in neonatal circumcisions among ob-gyn residents. Here we extend the needs assessment to urology residents. Methods: From Nov 2008 to Nov 2009, ob-gyn and urology residents at our institution were given an online survey to assess comfort, education, and proficiency in pre-operative evaluation and performance of circumcisions. Results: 26/35 (74%) ob-gyn and 12/17 (65%) urology residents responded to the survey. 62% of ob-gyn and 33% of urology residents intended to perform neonatal circumcisions in practice. Both groups described having little formal training in neonatal circumcision. Ob-gyn residents felt more comfortable than urology residents in performing neonatal circumcisions [mean 5.9 vs. 4.3, p = 0.001; 1 (very uncomfortable) - 7 (very comfortable)], though urology residents' comfort level increased with resident year. Ob-gyn residents felt less comfortable than urology residents (mean 3.9 vs. 5.1, p = 0.031) evaluating if a newborn penis may undergo circumcision safely. Urology residents performed better than ob-gyn residents at identifying contraindications to routine circumcision from 10 scenarios (mean 63% vs. 42% p < 0.001). Both felt that an online module was a good alternative to practical experience. Conclusions: At our institution, ob-gyn and urology residents have little formalized training in neonatal circumcision. While ob-gyn residents are comfortable performing circumcisions, they feel less comfortable evaluating the newborn penis and correctly managed fewer scenarios than did urology residents. This highlights the need for further curriculum development and formalized training.

AB - Objectives: Primary care physicians are the routine providers of neonatal circumcision, yet urologists commonly manage the complications. We previously identified a need for improved formalized training in neonatal circumcisions among ob-gyn residents. Here we extend the needs assessment to urology residents. Methods: From Nov 2008 to Nov 2009, ob-gyn and urology residents at our institution were given an online survey to assess comfort, education, and proficiency in pre-operative evaluation and performance of circumcisions. Results: 26/35 (74%) ob-gyn and 12/17 (65%) urology residents responded to the survey. 62% of ob-gyn and 33% of urology residents intended to perform neonatal circumcisions in practice. Both groups described having little formal training in neonatal circumcision. Ob-gyn residents felt more comfortable than urology residents in performing neonatal circumcisions [mean 5.9 vs. 4.3, p = 0.001; 1 (very uncomfortable) - 7 (very comfortable)], though urology residents' comfort level increased with resident year. Ob-gyn residents felt less comfortable than urology residents (mean 3.9 vs. 5.1, p = 0.031) evaluating if a newborn penis may undergo circumcision safely. Urology residents performed better than ob-gyn residents at identifying contraindications to routine circumcision from 10 scenarios (mean 63% vs. 42% p < 0.001). Both felt that an online module was a good alternative to practical experience. Conclusions: At our institution, ob-gyn and urology residents have little formalized training in neonatal circumcision. While ob-gyn residents are comfortable performing circumcisions, they feel less comfortable evaluating the newborn penis and correctly managed fewer scenarios than did urology residents. This highlights the need for further curriculum development and formalized training.

KW - Circumcision

KW - Curriculum

KW - Education

KW - Hypospadias

KW - Residency training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883453220&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883453220&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.05.012

DO - 10.1016/j.jpurol.2012.05.012

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 605

EP - 608

JO - Journal of Pediatric Urology

JF - Journal of Pediatric Urology

SN - 1477-5131

IS - 5

ER -