Navigation überspringen
Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg
Status: Bibliographieeintrag

Verfügbarkeit
Standort: ---
Exemplare: ---
heiBIB
 Online-Ressource
Verfasst von:Kranz, Jennifer [VerfasserIn]   i
 Schott, Sarah [VerfasserIn]   i
 Pelzer, Alexandre E. [VerfasserIn]   i
Titel:Urogynäkologische Aus- und Weiterbildungssituation in Deutschland
Titelzusatz:Kluft zwischen Anspruch und Realität =
Paralleltitel:Urogynaecological training situation in Germany
Paralleltitelzusatz:Gap between demand and reality
Verf.angabe:J. Kranz, L. Schneidewind, D. Barski, R. Tahbaz, N. Huppertz, C. Zerrenner, M. Grabbert, S. Mühlstädt, F. Queissert, S. Schott, S. Grundl, A. Boymanns, J. Steffens, A.E. Pelzer
E-Jahr:2016
Jahr:13. Juli 2016
Umfang:9 S.
Fussnoten:Gesehen am 20.11.2018
Titel Quelle:Enthalten in: Der Urologe
Ort Quelle:[Berlin : Springer Medizin, 2007
Jahr Quelle:2016
Band/Heft Quelle:55(2016), 8, Seite 1038-1046
Abstract:BackgroundWith increasing life expectancy, progressive demographic change and decreasing societal stigmatization of incontinence urologists and gynaecologists are increasingly faced with urogynaecological challenges. To date however, urogynaecology is a poorly standardized area of expertise in both disciplines. Therefore, the urogynaecology training, especially in Germany, is very heterogeneous and requires evaluation as well as improvement.Materials and methodsThe GeSRU-Academics research group “Functional urology and LUTS” evaluated this subject nationwide among urological and gynecological trainees and their chief physicians by using a comprehensive questionnaire (34/38 multiple-choice items) between April 2015 and May 2016.Results336 urological residents and 190 chief physicians as well as 171 gynaecological residents and 175 chief physicians participated in the survey. Of all trainees, 70.0 % stated a personal interest in urogynaecology, but 45.4 % (gynaecological residents) and 52.9 % (urological residents) mention not to receive a standardized training in their own department. The chief physicians’ survey resulted in discrepancies concerning the same question, <10 % of all residents do not receive a standardized urogynaecological training from their point of view. However, standardized urogynaecological training is of importance for those chief physicians.ConclusionsThere is a discrepancy between expectations and reality of urogynaecological education and training. To enable a well-structured and standardized urogynaecological education and training, it is compulsory to focus on an interdisciplinary cooperation and to promote multidisciplinary development. A broad-based, well-designed training network and curricula should be established and used consistently.
DOI:doi:10.1007/s00120-016-0183-5
URL:Bitte beachten Sie: Dies ist ein Bibliographieeintrag. Ein Volltextzugriff für Mitglieder der Universität besteht hier nur, falls für die entsprechende Zeitschrift/den entsprechenden Sammelband ein Abonnement besteht oder es sich um einen OpenAccess-Titel handelt.

: Volltext ; Verlag: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00120-016-0183-5
 : Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-016-0183-5
 : : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-016-0183-5
Datenträger:Online-Ressource
Sprache:ger eng
Sach-SW:Curricula
 Harninkontinenz
 Pelvic organ prolapse
 Senkungsbeschwerden
 Trainees
 Urinary incontinence
 Urogynäkologie
 Urogynecology
 Weiterbildungsassistenten
 Weiterbildungscurriculum
K10plus-PPN:1583863397
Verknüpfungen:→ Zeitschrift

Permanenter Link auf diesen Titel (bookmarkfähig):  https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/titel/68330289   QR-Code
zum Seitenanfang