It may be surprising to some, but there have only ever been 8 Societies for Pediatric Urology (SPU) Fall Congresses (2 joint meetings with the ESPU [European Society for Paediatric Urology]) over the last 10 years. I was asked to be the junior staff assistant/co-program chair for the 2021 SPU Fall Congress with Patricio Gargolla, MD, as the senior staff; however, I am actually old enough to remember when the major national meeting for pediatric urologists was at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Section on Urology National Conference and Exhibition. The transition from the AAP Section on Urology to the SPU Fall Congress was unfortunately lost on me as a very junior attending. A meeting seemed like a meeting, and the title behind it or the change in registration did not completely register with me so long as it was the meeting for pediatric urology. But much like “being on the other side of the curtain” as a patient can be truly helpful as a doctor to understand perspective, participating as a co-chair for the SPU Fall Congress was also a little like pulling the curtain back to discover who the great and powerful Oz is. It definitely made me a better citizen of the SPU and a more informed consumer of the Fall Congress.

Since the inception of the SPU Fall Congress in 2013, the model of junior/senior staff co-chairs was encouraged, but was more formally adopted in 2019. Without speaking for the SPU or being too obvious, this model not only provides an opportunity for a member earlier in their career to participate and be exposed to some of the inner workings of what it takes to get one of these meetings off the ground, but also allows a voice at the table of what might be more relevant to the earlier career members. Without question, it also lifts some of the heavy load off the senior co-chair.

The meeting sponsors rotate every year between the AAP, SPU, and the Society for Fetal Urology, with the ESPU sponsoring the meeting every fifth year in Europe (mark your calendars for Vienna 2025!) The co-chairs for the meeting are selected based on who is sponsoring the meeting that year. Furthermore, the structure of the meeting includes contributions from many of the supporting societies such as the SPU lecture, AAP medal recipient, and AAP Lattimer, John Duckett, and Meredith Campbell lecturers. While these are all listed in the meeting booklet, it is easy to be a passive consumer and not recognize the ways in which all the various supporting societies of the SPU contribute on a yearly basis. It is a collaboration between the co-chairs and the sponsors as to who gives what lectures and on what topics, but the final decisions for some are not up to the co-chairs.

From abstract selection, timing of different sessions, podium vs moderated posters, panels, and other educational programs, planning these meetings can be a real art to balance the amount of time for each. Suddenly there really aren’t enough hours in the day to pack everything in or try to make everyone happy. The cost of more discussion is weighted against having more material presented. It cannot be underestimated how much time is dedicated to this process. As co-chairs, you are responsible to review and score every abstract (typically between 300 and 400), re-review after all the scores and comments are in, and then select which abstracts will be accepted for a podium or moderated poster. This takes an enormous amount of time in a very short window. If one agrees to this undertaking, it is important that you ask up front about the different timelines of when the workload will be the highest, and I recommend lightening up your clinical load during these times. It can be extremely overwhelming, and you want to bring your freshest brainpower to the task. Selecting moderators for each session or speakers for the panels provides another opportunity to help engage members of the SPU and align them if possible with their clinical areas of interest. As someone who has not practiced at a location with a fellowship since graduating, this was a wonderful opportunity for me to connect with some other members with whom I had not yet crossed paths.

Exposure to the Executive Council is perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of being a meeting co-chair. As co-chair, you are invited to the Executive Council meetings to present the meeting and discuss the program, etc. It provides you with the insight from an organizational standpoint as to what goes into selecting the meeting locations (done years in advance due to contracts, prior locations, ability to travel there easily), cost of the meeting (registration fees don’t seem so high anymore), industry sponsorship (critical to offset cost of meeting; please interact with industry!), membership concerns (have you updated your membership from candidate?), training and education of fellows, meeting attendance, and the list goes on. The amount of pure, unpaid service that goes into being a member of the Executive Council was overwhelmingly lost on me previously. It can be easy to take for granted that the SPU will just exist, the meetings will go on with or without you, and not recognize the amount of time, thought, and dedication it takes to keep the SPU and its mission going. Seeing all of this early on in my career has encouraged me to continue to actively participate as an SPU and AAP member, and I encourage everyone to take an active role in these societies.

A huge thanks also to Lorraine O’Grady and PRRI, who support the SPU. Lorraine has been with the SPU since starting the Fall Congress and works year-round to support the SPU and keep all of us in check.

Looking forward to seeing everyone at the next meeting! If you have suggestions, please do fill out the post-meeting survey. It is carefully analyzed, and comments are incorporated into future meetings. When we all participate, we continue to evolve in a meaningful way.