Search

Objective: To describe and evaluate a risk-stratified triage pathway for inpatient urology consultations during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. This pathway seeks to outline a urology patient care strategy that reduces the transmission risk to both healthcare providers and patients, reduces the healthcare burden, and maintains appropriate patient care., Materials and Methods: Consultations to the urology service during a 3-week period (March 16 to April 2, 2020) were triaged and managed via one of 3 pathways: Standard, Telemedicine, or High-Risk. Standard consults were in-person consults with non COVID-19 patients, High-Risk consults were in-person consults with COVID-19 positive/suspected patients, and Telemedicine consults were telephonic consults for low-acuity urologic issues in either group of patients. Patient demographics, consultation parameters and consultation outcomes were compared to consultations from the month of March 2019. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square test and continuous variables using Mann-Whitney U test. A P value <.05 was considered significant., Results: Between March 16 and April 2, 2020, 53 inpatient consultations were performed. By following our triage pathway, a total of 19/53 consultations (35.8%) were performed via Telemedicine with no in-person exposure, 10/53 consultations (18.9%) were High-Risk, in which we strictly controlled the urology team member in-person contact, and the remainder, 24/53 consultations (45.2%), were performed as Standard in-person encounters. COVID-19 associated consultations represented 18/53 (34.0%) of all consultations during this period, and of these, 8/18 (44.4%) were managed successfully via Telemedicine alone. No team member developed COVID-19 infection., Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic, most urology consultations can be managed in a patient and physician safety-conscious manner, by implementing a novel triage pathway., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The objectives of this review were to identify and evaluate the efficacy of mentorship programmes for minimally invasive procedures in urology and give recommendations on how to improve mentorship. A systematic literature search of the PubMed/Medline databases was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In all, 21 articles were included in the review and divided into four categories: fellowships, mini-fellowships, mentored skills courses and novel mentorship programmes. Various structures of mentorship programme were identified and in general, mentorship programmes were found to be feasible, having content validity and educational impact. Perioperative data showed equally good outcomes when comparing trainees and specialists. Mentorship programmes are effective and represent one of the best current methods of training in urology. However, participation in such programmes is not widespread. The structure of mentorship programmes is highly variable, with no clearly defined 'best approach' for postgraduate training. This review offers recommendations as to how this 'best approach' can be established., (© 2014 The Authors. BJU International © 2014 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: We investigated the impact of robotics on surgical skills by comparing traditional laparoscopy with the da Vinci Surgical System in the performance of various laparoscopic training drills., Subjects and Methods: Twenty-one surgeons performed eight timed drills of increasing difficulty with a laparoscopic trainer and the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Sunnyvale, CA). The mean time to drill completion, drill time variance, and statistical analysis were performed. Surgeons were also questioned about their perception of the robotic technology following completion of the drill series., Results: The mean time required to complete the first drill was 69 seconds with laparoscopy and 57 seconds with the robotic system. The mean times for drill two were 67 seconds with laparoscopy and 44 seconds with robotics; for drill three, the times were 88 seconds for laparoscopy and 61 seconds for robotics, and for drill four, 186 seconds with laparoscopy and 71 seconds with robotics. Only the first drill failed to show a statistically significant difference between the laparoscopic and robotic groups., Conclusions: The robotic system allowed surgeons to complete drills faster than traditional laparoscopy. Novice laparoscopic surgeons performed three of the four drills faster robotically than did expert laparoscopic surgeons. These findings may indicate that the attributes of the robotic system level the playing field between surgeons of different skill levels. The next generation of surgeons must focus on this evolving technology and its application in the operating room of the future.