Objectives There is a shortage of urology residents in the KSA, and patients may have to wait for nearly three months to seek medical consultation with qualified urologists. According to the literature, urology residents face work-related burnout, which may affect the quality of health services provided to Saudi patients. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of work-related burnout among urology residents in KSA. Methods A cross-sectional survey was carried out among Saudi urology residents using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), which includes personal, work, and patient-related burnouts. The survey was electronically sent to urology residents registered with the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS). Data were analysed using the SPSS program. Results Of the 247 selected residents, 215 (87.04%) completed the questionnaire. Concerning personal burnout, 12.6% reported ‘always feeling tired’, 13% ‘always physically exhausted’, and 19.1% reported being ‘always emotionally exhausted’. In addition, approximately 14% described the work as emotionally exhausting to a very high degree, while 18.6% added that they felt burnt out because of the work to a very high degree. According to the CBI, the mean personal burnout was 57.92, while the mean work-related burnout was 55.26. Conclusions Urology residents in KSA suffer from a high degree of burnout, and urgent interventions are essential to make their work-life balance less exhausting.

This study evaluated the study habits of Saudi urology residents throughout their residency training. It examines the study time and quality of study materials used by Saudi urology residents and identifies ways to maximize study benefits. Patients and Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed to 152 registered residents in regions throughout Saudi Arabia (response rate: 93.4%). The questionnaire addressed study habits throughout training, motivations for studying, preferred study resources, impressions on teaching quality, study preparation methods, and exam preparedness among junior and senior residents. Results: Among all residents, 37.3% read for 2-5 hours weekly. Juniors read significantly more than seniors (P = 0.034). Marital status affects seniors' study habits (P = 0.029). For most seniors, preparation for the final board exam is the greatest motivation for studying (P = 0.006). The AUA/EAU guidelines were useful information source for seniors (P = 0.001). Fifty-four percent (54.4%) of residents felt that their residency program did not provide protected study time prior to the board exams. Moreover, the majority (64.8%) felt that the training program did not adequately prepare them for the board exams. Conclusion: We recommend that local program directors implement more effective teaching methods. Structured reading habits and specific study materials were found to be positive predictors of successful performance. Residents should also be educated in balancing working hours, social life, and study.

Purpose: This study evaluates the satisfaction of urology residents with the Saudi Board of Urology (SBU) Training Program and identifies areas of weakness and strength to improve the educational environment, surgical competency, and overall satisfaction of urology residents with the program. Methods: We administered an electronic self-made questionnaire that included two sections. One comprised demographic data (age, gender, weight, height, marital status, level of training, city of training, and center of training), while the other concerned SBU evaluation (satisfaction with different aspects of training, such as ways of assessment, mentors’ feedback, surgical competency, research, and strengths and weaknesses of SBU). Results: The overall satisfaction of urology residency program was 28.8% while 44.2% of residents had a neutral response. The highest level of satisfaction with clinical and surgical practice was among graduates (56.9%) and Riyadh residents (45.1%). Furthermore, good work/life balance received the lowest level of satisfaction (5.2%) among senior residents, while good clinical experience received the highest level (62.7%) among the graduates. Residents reported a high exposure in endourology and pediatric urology, while transplant, reconstructive, and neurourology had the lowest exposure. Forty-two percent of respondents undertook research during their residency training, but most respondents (54%) did not publish any research papers during their training. Sixty-two percent of graduates felt that their training program did not prepare them adequately to perform well on the board examinations. Conclusion: Our results confirmed that satisfaction of residents with the urology program process is variable according to the city of training. Having high satisfaction level in some cities reflects the improvement of urology training program after restructuring. We identified new areas in need of improvement, namely lack of mentorship, clear and formal assessment process, and variation of training process between central and peripheral programs.