Search

Objective: To analyze Twitter engagement in response to the urology match during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Tweets containing the hashtags "#uromatch" or "#AUAmatch" during the 2021 and 2022 Match Week were reviewed. Date, author type and number of followers, general content, and engagement with each Tweet was collected. Differences in engagement between author type and content were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Tweet characteristics were compared between the 2021 and 2022 Match Cycles using the Chi-Square test., Results: There were 656 Tweets in total, with 272 (43.5%) from 2021 and 353 (56.5%) from 2022. Medical students' and residency programs' posts received significantly more Tweet engagement than those by residents/fellows, attendings, or the AUA (P <.05). Tweets focusing on announcing a new residency class and personal announcements of match results received significantly more engagements than other content categories (P <.05). In 2022, there was a significantly higher percentage of Tweets about advice for unmatched applicants (2.2 vs 12.5; P <.001), match statistics (0.4 vs 2.9; P = .028) and focus on underrepresented groups in urology (0.7 vs 3.4; P = .029)., Conclusion: The Twitter response to the urology match between 2021 and 2022 mirrored the increase in competitiveness, with greater participation and an increasing focus on the difficulty of matching. During Match Week, Twitter is a readily available source of information for programs, matched students, and unmatched students alike. As we continue to embrace virtual platforms, we believe that Twitter will remain a major source of match-related information and can be an instrumental tool for broader networking in our field., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine differences between telephone and video-televisits and identify whether visit modality is associated with satisfaction in an urban, academic general urology practice., Methods: A cross sectional analysis of patients who completed a televisit at our urology practice (summer 2020) was performed. A Likert-based satisfaction telephone survey was offered to patients within 7 days of their televisit. Patient demographics, televisit modality (telephone vs video), and outcomes of the visit (eg follow-up visit scheduled, orders placed) were retrospectively abstracted from each chart and compared between the telephone and video cohorts. Multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate variables associated with satisfaction while controlling for potential confounders., Results: A total of 269 patients were analyzed. 73% (196/269) completed a telephone televisit. Compared to the video cohort, the telephone cohort was slightly older (mean 58.8 years vs. 54.2 years, P = .03). There were no significant differences in the frequency of orders placed for medication changes, labs, imaging, or for in-person follow-up visits within 30 days between cohorts. Survey results showed overall 84.7% patients were satisfied, and there was no significant difference between the telephone and video cohorts. Visit type was not associated with satisfaction on multivariable analyses, while use of an interpreter [OR:8.13 (1.00-65.94); P = .05], labs ordered [OR:2.74 (1.12-6.70); P = .03] and female patient gender [OR:2.28 (1.03-5.03); P = .04] were significantly associated with satisfaction., Conclusion: Overall, most patients were satisfied with their televisit. Additionally, telephone- and video-televisits were similar regarding patient opinions, patient characteristics, and visit outcome. Efforts to increase access and coverage of telehealth, particularly telephone-televisits, should continue past the COVID-19 pandemic., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 forced our healthcare system in the Bronx, New York to cancel nearly all scheduled surgeries. We developed a framework for prioritizing postponed urologic surgeries that was utilized once cases were permitted to be rescheduled. As many parts of our country experience first and second waves of this pandemic, our framework may serve as a resource for other centers experiencing restrictions on the scheduling of elective urologic surgeries., Methods: As the COVID-19 pandemic started and peaked in New York, almost all of our scheduled urologic surgeries were cancelled. Each Urologist was asked to rank his/her cancelled surgeries by priority (Level 1-least urgent; Level 2-moderately urgent; Level 3-most urgent). A committee of Urologists assigned a subclass to Level 3 and 2 cases (3a-least urgent; 3b-moderately urgent; 3c-most urgent; 2a-lower priority; 2b-higher priority). The committee then reviewed cases by urgency to derive a final priority ranking., Results: A total of 478 total urologic surgeries were canceled and categorized: 250 Level 1, 130 Level 2, 98 Level 3 (73 adult, 25 pediatric). Level 3c involved renal cell carcinoma ≥ T2b, high-grade bladder urothelial carcinoma, adrenal mass/cancer > 6 cm, testicular cancer requiring radical orchiectomy, and penile cancer. Level 3b involved T2a renal masses requiring nephrectomy, while high-risk prostate cancer and symptomatic nephrolithiasis were classified as 3a. Level 2 included testicular cancer requiring retroperitoneal lymph node dissection and complicated benign prostatic hyperplasia. Surgeries for urologic reconstruction, non-complicated nephrolithiasis, erectile dysfunction, and urinary incontinence were considered Level 1., Conclusions: Our disease-specific approach to surgical rescheduling offers appropriate guidance for triaging urologic surgeries. Our system can provide guidance to other institutions as COVID-19 cases surge in different regions and with the growing second wave.