Introduction Implicit bias can lead to unintended influence in the treatment of other people and impact the care of patients. As such, there has been an increase in training to improve provider awareness of their own biases. There are many ways to address bias training within the medical community, but we currently do not have data on its use within urology. Our current study examined the frequency, modality, and intensity of bias training among urology providers. Methods We created a survey to evaluate exposure to bias education in members of the urologic community, with an optional exercise in implicit bias training. This survey was sent to a nationwide audience through the Society of Academic Urology (SAU) database and also shared on social media. All responses were anonymous. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to study commencement (IRB STUDY23020038). Patients were asked about their exposure to bias training within their institution, who provided that bias training, and if they felt bias training to be effective. Results Of the 84 providers who responded to the survey, 77 (91%) were physician providers (e.g., attendings), five (5%) were resident physicians, and two (2%) were advanced practice providers (APPs). Additionally, 56 (67%) respondents reported that bias training is mandatory within their departments, while 63 (75%) indicated that the primary method of training is an online course or module. Only seven (8%) respondents noted that their bias training was sponsored by the urology department or division at their institution. Only 37 (44%) providers agreed the bias training they were provided had a positive impact. While race and gender in the workplace are frequently presented, topics related to ageism, ableism, and diversity of religion are less often represented. Discussion Most of the providers surveyed had some exposure to bias training. The majority of training is presented as online courses or modules sponsored by the institution or university. These modalities appear to be associated with low satisfaction rates among urology providers. Bias training and recognition of biases are important for patient outcomes and satisfaction, especially within urology. To ensure we provide optimal care for our patients, ownership of this issue and ensuring adequate training for our providers is warranted. Conclusion Our study shows that bias training within the urologic community is limited in scope and its current implementation leads to low satisfaction among providers. This is the first study to evaluate this subject among urology providers. Future studies are warranted to evaluate more engaging and meaningful ways to educate providers on diversity topics.