Trainee satisfaction in higher speciality urology training: Can we mitigate a workforce crisis?

Abstract

Background: Over 4 years urology as a speciality has seen a 49% increase in unfilled consultant posts and long term the British Association of Urological Surgeons is predicting a shortage of up to 149 consultants over a 12-year period. Striving to keep trainees within the NHS workforce is one way of minimising those figures. We aimed to examine the challenges to workforce retention in urology higher speciality training. Methods: A 10-item survey was designed and piloted, examining the attitudes and intentions of higher speciality trainees towards their training. Results: Forty-nine higher speciality trainees completed the survey, 29 men (59%), 20 women (41%). Twenty-two (45%) were ST4 or below; 24 (49%) had considered leaving urology training, with 31 of 49 trainees (63%) citing burnout as the most common reason for this. Concerns about a shortage of colleagues and financial challenges were the second and third most common reasons. Thirty-four (69%) respondents would still apply for urology higher speciality training if they had to make the decision again. Colleagues, operating time and the ability to make an impact were all cited as enjoyable factors. Discussion: The findings of this survey clearly demonstrate mixed feelings towards urology higher training. However, the majority of trainees would still pick the speciality again, and when asked trainees were able to select a number of factors which they enjoyed. Conclusion: A workforce crisis affects everyone. While the situation may be unavoidable, we must take this opportunity to limit its impact.

Satisfaction and attrition in the UK healthcare sector over the past decade

“…The majority of existing studies that have attempted to investigate the reasons behind NHS workers leaving have been limited to smaller samples, where the outcomes for a specific occupation was the main focus rather than for the entire sector (such as for nursing [14]). A number of these studies have been qualitative and involved interviews [15][16][17][18] or other combinations of qualitative survey and narrative analysis [19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. While insightful, the majority of these studies have sample sizes well below 100, and so it is difficult to draw any general conclusions about the reasons behind attrition, particularly if there is a sampling or response bias.…”