Urologues américains et français: Quelles différences de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique?

Translated title of the contribution: What are the differences between American and French urologists?

Karim Bensalah, Olivier Traxer, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Philippe Zimmern

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As a result of the recognized training that they provide for urologists, France and the USA both participate in the development and innovation of this specialty. However, there are many differences between the two systems. Medical training is not organized in the same way. Americans must obtain a University Master's degree before entering medical school and selection by entrance examinations at the end of the first year and at internship is specific to France. In the USA, admission to a urology training programme is based on national matching, in which the candidate's personality and career are at least as important as his or her examination results. Residency lasts for about the same duration as in France. General surgical training is more succinct. Residency ends with a year of Chief Resident, which validates the practical training. A registrar position is not systematic. Residents can complete their training by a specialized fellowship (endourology, oncology, urogynaecology...) when they are planning a university career. Residents receive a very good intellectual education throughout their training, designed to prepare them for the Board certification which validates their training and authorizes them to practice. Finally, the possibility to conduct research in parallel with clinical practice is probably one of the greatest advantages of the American system which benefits from greater resources and a particularly effective organization. French and American training programmes are not organized in the same way for cultural, social and economic reasons. It would no doubt be beneficial to consider the positive aspects of transatlantic training to improve and maintain the excellence of French urology.

Original languageFrench
Pages (from-to)1367-1371
Number of pages5
JournalProgres en Urologie
Volume17
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2007

Fingerprint

Internship and Residency
France
Urology
Education
Certification
Medical Schools
Personality
Economics
Organizations
Research
Urologists

Keywords

  • France
  • Training
  • Urologists
  • USA

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Urologues américains et français : Quelles différences de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique? / Bensalah, Karim; Traxer, Olivier; Shariat, Shahrokh F.; Zimmern, Philippe.

In: Progres en Urologie, Vol. 17, No. 7, 11.2007, p. 1367-1371.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bensalah, Karim ; Traxer, Olivier ; Shariat, Shahrokh F. ; Zimmern, Philippe. / Urologues américains et français : Quelles différences de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique?. In: Progres en Urologie. 2007 ; Vol. 17, No. 7. pp. 1367-1371.
@article{66f855303829466f90d59e2e0e8ffc1c,
title = "Urologues am{\'e}ricains et fran{\cc}ais: Quelles diff{\'e}rences de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique?",
abstract = "As a result of the recognized training that they provide for urologists, France and the USA both participate in the development and innovation of this specialty. However, there are many differences between the two systems. Medical training is not organized in the same way. Americans must obtain a University Master's degree before entering medical school and selection by entrance examinations at the end of the first year and at internship is specific to France. In the USA, admission to a urology training programme is based on national matching, in which the candidate's personality and career are at least as important as his or her examination results. Residency lasts for about the same duration as in France. General surgical training is more succinct. Residency ends with a year of Chief Resident, which validates the practical training. A registrar position is not systematic. Residents can complete their training by a specialized fellowship (endourology, oncology, urogynaecology...) when they are planning a university career. Residents receive a very good intellectual education throughout their training, designed to prepare them for the Board certification which validates their training and authorizes them to practice. Finally, the possibility to conduct research in parallel with clinical practice is probably one of the greatest advantages of the American system which benefits from greater resources and a particularly effective organization. French and American training programmes are not organized in the same way for cultural, social and economic reasons. It would no doubt be beneficial to consider the positive aspects of transatlantic training to improve and maintain the excellence of French urology.",
keywords = "France, Training, Urologists, USA",
author = "Karim Bensalah and Olivier Traxer and Shariat, {Shahrokh F.} and Philippe Zimmern",
year = "2007",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/S1166-7087(07)78579-2",
language = "French",
volume = "17",
pages = "1367--1371",
journal = "Progres en Urologie",
issn = "1166-7087",
publisher = "Elsevier Masson",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Urologues américains et français

T2 - Quelles différences de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique?

AU - Bensalah, Karim

AU - Traxer, Olivier

AU - Shariat, Shahrokh F.

AU - Zimmern, Philippe

PY - 2007/11

Y1 - 2007/11

N2 - As a result of the recognized training that they provide for urologists, France and the USA both participate in the development and innovation of this specialty. However, there are many differences between the two systems. Medical training is not organized in the same way. Americans must obtain a University Master's degree before entering medical school and selection by entrance examinations at the end of the first year and at internship is specific to France. In the USA, admission to a urology training programme is based on national matching, in which the candidate's personality and career are at least as important as his or her examination results. Residency lasts for about the same duration as in France. General surgical training is more succinct. Residency ends with a year of Chief Resident, which validates the practical training. A registrar position is not systematic. Residents can complete their training by a specialized fellowship (endourology, oncology, urogynaecology...) when they are planning a university career. Residents receive a very good intellectual education throughout their training, designed to prepare them for the Board certification which validates their training and authorizes them to practice. Finally, the possibility to conduct research in parallel with clinical practice is probably one of the greatest advantages of the American system which benefits from greater resources and a particularly effective organization. French and American training programmes are not organized in the same way for cultural, social and economic reasons. It would no doubt be beneficial to consider the positive aspects of transatlantic training to improve and maintain the excellence of French urology.

AB - As a result of the recognized training that they provide for urologists, France and the USA both participate in the development and innovation of this specialty. However, there are many differences between the two systems. Medical training is not organized in the same way. Americans must obtain a University Master's degree before entering medical school and selection by entrance examinations at the end of the first year and at internship is specific to France. In the USA, admission to a urology training programme is based on national matching, in which the candidate's personality and career are at least as important as his or her examination results. Residency lasts for about the same duration as in France. General surgical training is more succinct. Residency ends with a year of Chief Resident, which validates the practical training. A registrar position is not systematic. Residents can complete their training by a specialized fellowship (endourology, oncology, urogynaecology...) when they are planning a university career. Residents receive a very good intellectual education throughout their training, designed to prepare them for the Board certification which validates their training and authorizes them to practice. Finally, the possibility to conduct research in parallel with clinical practice is probably one of the greatest advantages of the American system which benefits from greater resources and a particularly effective organization. French and American training programmes are not organized in the same way for cultural, social and economic reasons. It would no doubt be beneficial to consider the positive aspects of transatlantic training to improve and maintain the excellence of French urology.

KW - France

KW - Training

KW - Urologists

KW - USA

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=38349082374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=38349082374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S1166-7087(07)78579-2

DO - 10.1016/S1166-7087(07)78579-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 18271424

AN - SCOPUS:38349082374

VL - 17

SP - 1367

EP - 1371

JO - Progres en Urologie

JF - Progres en Urologie

SN - 1166-7087

IS - 7

ER -