Open Access

ARTICLE

A survey of urological manpower, technology, and resources in Canada

Peter Pommerville¹, S. Larry Goldenberg², James W.L. Wilson³, Yves Fradet⁴, Jacques Corcos⁵, Brian A.P. Morris⁶

1 Vancouver Island Health Authority, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
2 University of British Columbia, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
3 Queen’s University, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
4 Laval University, Hotel-Dieu de Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
5 McGill University, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
6 University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Address correspondence to Peter Pommerville, MD, Capital Health Region, 230 – 1641 Hillside Avenue, Victoria, BC V8T 5G1 Canada

Canadian Journal of Urology 2004, 11(3), 2290-2295.

Abstract

Introduction: Knowledge of the current status of manpower and resources is important in understanding the state of any medical specialty, and critical in planning for future recruitment, funding and infrastructure development.
Methods: In 2003, the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) conducted two nationwide surveys examining manpower, resources, and the technology available. One survey went only to academic and hospital leaders across the country (the resources survey), while the other was sent to the entire general membership of the CUA.
Results: The response rate for the resources survey was 67%, while that for the membership survey was 50.4%. The respondents' ages were evenly distributed, with the modal 5-year range being 51 to 55 years of age. Eighty-eight percent of respondents were Canadian-trained. Two-thirds of respondents spent over 80% of their practice time in direct patient care, and most practiced general urology. The majority of respondents practiced in smaller hospitals: 57.6% in centres with 300 or fewer inpatient beds, and 47.2% of centres reported <500 procedures/year. Community hospitals (62% of responses to the resources survey) generally had fewer advanced technologies than academic centres. A quarter of the cystoscopy equipment used by respondents was over 15 years old.
Conclusions: The results of these surveys present a snapshot of the current state of urology resources and manpower across Canada, potentially allowing better planning and negotiations with hospitals and governments.

---

Keywords

---