The training of a ‘stone doctor’

OBJECTIVE: To propose alternative models of training for doctors treating patients with stones, and to identify their relative value, as such doctors are trained through urology programmes which sometimes cannot be expanded to meet the need, are short of teachers, too comprehensive and lengthy. This review explores new pathways for training to provide competence in the care of patients with stones. METHODS: Previous reports were identified and existing training models collectively categorised as Model 1. Three alternative models were constructed and compared in the context of advantages, acceptability, feasibility, educational impact and applicability in different geosocio-political contexts. RESULTS: In Model 2, urological and stone training diverge as options after common basic courses and experience. In Model 3, individuals access training through a common educational matrix (EM) for nurses, physicians, etc., according to the match between their capacities, entry requirements, personal desires and willingness for further responsibility. Stone doctors with no urological background cannot fulfil other service and educational commitments, and might create unwelcome dependence on other colleagues for complex situations. Programmes involving a common EM affect professional boundaries and are not easily acceptable. There is a lack of clarity on methods for medical certification and re-certification. However, the lack of technically competent stone experts in developing worlds requires an exploration of alternative models of training and practice. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to provide exemplary care after abbreviated training makes alternative models attractive. Worldwide debate, further exploration and pilot implementation are required, perhaps first in the developing world, in which much of the ‘stone belt’ exists.