The record of in-training assessments (RITAs) in urology: an evaluation of trainee perceptions

To evaluate the effect of the Calman reforms on SpRs in urology with respect to their educational goals, their experience of the RITA process and its value in preparing them for their chosen consultant careers. All urological trainees holding national training numbers who had completed at least one RITA review, but had not yet been awarded a CCST, were sampled. A total of 100 completed replies were received. Of those replying, 87% had an appointed educational supervisor with marked variation between regions. Training expectations in the four main categories of knowledge, vocational skills, operative competencies and personal development for each particular year of training were clear to only 40%, 35%, 44% and 60% of trainees, respectively. In general, trainee satisfaction with their most recent RITA review was fair with a mean of 6 (range, 4-8) on an arbitrary 10-point scale. Of the trainees, 83% felt that they would be adequately trained for consultant practice at the end of their training although this confidence varied between years of training. Unification in the registrar grade has initiated an improvement in urological education for SpRs. There has, however, been haphazard delivery of that education due to a lack of objectivity in definition and assessment of the educational goals in individual training years. The RITA process should be more prescriptive in its administration and the setting of annual targeted training objectives should help to optimise the training opportunities for individual SpRs.