Source of Funding: None MP37-11 THE NEAR FUTURE IMPACT OF RETIREMENT ON THE UROLOGIC WORKFORCE: RESULTS FROM AUA CENSUS DATA Thomas Gaither*, Mohannad Awad, San Francisco, CA; Ramond Fang, Patricia Rehring, William Meeks, Washington DC, DC; J. Quentin Clemens, Ann Arbor, MI; Scott Gulig, Washington DC, DC; Bradley Erickson, Iowa City, IA; E. Charles Osterberg, Benjamin Breyer, San Francisco, CA INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: With an expanding elderly population and an aging urologic work force, concerns regarding increased demand and decreased supply of urologists have been raised. The impact of impending retirement of urologists on our work- force is unknown. We utilized the AUA census data to assess self- perceived planned retirement patterns among urologists in order to anticipate the future needs of our field. METHODS: We analyzed the 2014 AUA census database, which is a specialty representative survey distributed to the entire U.S. urologists and other urologic care providers annually. We compared urologists who are nearing planned retirement with those urologists not near planned retirement. Nearing planned retirement was defined as urologists who planned to retire within 5 years. Differences in demographic and practice patterns between these two groups were analyzed. RESULTS: 2,204 urologists completed the census to produce a national estimate of 11,703 urologists in the United States. Of the cohort, 3181 (27%) are within 5 years of their planned retirement age. The mean age (standard deviation, SD) of urologists who are nearing planned retirement (67, SD¼8.2) was older than non-retiring urologists (48, SD¼10.6), p<0.01. A larger proportion of urologists who are nearing retirement are male, 3121 (98%) compared to non-retiring urologists, 7538 (89%), p<0.01. Similar numbers of urologists will be retiring across the nine AUA regional sections. Nearly double the pro- portion of nearing retirement urologists are found in micropolitan and rural areas, 534 (17%) v. 782 (9%), p<0.01 compared to non-retiring urologists. The percentage of urologists nearing planned retirement are more likely to practice general urology, 2341 (74%), which is signifi- cantly higher than that of non-retiring urologists, 5072 (60%), p<0.01. Among urologists nearing retirement, 2155 (68%) of them still perform inpatient operations, while among non-retiring urologists, 7562 (89%) of them perform inpatient operations, p<0.01. Those urologists who are near planned retirement see an average of 88 patients per week, 95% CI (86.7-89.1), while those further from retirement see an average of 96.5 patients per week, 95% CI (96-97), p<0.01. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-forth of existing urologists plan to retire in the next five years. General urology and urology practices outside of metropolitan areas will be impacted the most by the planned retiring workforce. Source of Funding: None MP37-12 UROLOGY APPLICANTS 0 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING AND MATCHING INTO RESIDENCY Amir H Lebastchi*, Ian D McLaren, Gary J Faerber, Kate H Kraft, Khaled S Hafez, Casey A Dauw, Ann Arbor, MI; Vincent G Bird, Thomas F Stringer, Gainesville, FL; Ajay Singla, Toledo, OH; Mathew D Sorensen, Hunter Wessells, Seattle, WA; Sapan N Ambani, Ann Arbor, MI INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: It is unclear whether urology residency applicants understand how they are ranked. Furthermore, we do not know how applicants evaluate training pro- grams. We conducted a national survey to better understand how future urology residents evaluate residency programs, and how they feel they are evaluated. METHODS: A survey was sent to all 2016 urology residency match applicants who applied to the urology training program at one of 4 participating institutions. Participants were asked to rank criteria they used to evaluate training programs, as well as rank what they felt pro- grams used in the selection of potential trainees. Analysis of variance with post-hoc testing was used to compare and evaluate differences in mean ranks. RESULTS: 322 applicants with baseline demographics similar to historical data responded. Applicants ranked operative experience, followed by interaction with residents, as most important when evalu- ating potential training programs (Table 1). 46% of respondents felt geography played at least a strong role in determining their future training program. Applicants felt that training programs considered United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, followed by urology references, as most important when selecting future residents (Table 2, Figure). CONCLUSIONS: Urology applicants have significant insight into what factors influence their ranking by training programs. Addi- tionally, the results of our survey provide data on what today 0 s appli- cants value in a training program, which programs may find useful when marketing their program to future applicants. Vol. 195, No. 4S, Supplement, Saturday, May 7, 2016 THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY â e501