Plastic surgery training in the UK: Results from a national survey of trainee experiences.

PLASTA Plastic surgery Surgical training

Journal

JPRAS open
ISSN: 2352-5878
Titre abrégé: JPRAS Open
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101680420

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Historique:
received: 03 04 2020
accepted: 15 06 2020
entrez: 11 8 2020
pubmed: 11 8 2020
medline: 11 8 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Plastic surgery training in the UK continues to evolve towards an outcome-based rather than time-served curriculum. UK plastic surgery trainees are appointed nationally, and are assessed according to national standards, but training is delivered regionally. This study sought opinion from current UK plastic surgery trainees in order to highlight strengths and shortcomings of the higher surgical training programme. A cross-sectional study was designed and administered by the UK Plastic Surgery Trainees Association (PLASTA). A questionnaire was distributed to all UK plastic surgery trainees holding a National Training Number, using the REDCap web-based application. Of the 320 UK plastic surgery trainees, 131 (41%) participated in this survey, with responses from all 12 UK training regions. The most common subspecialty career aspirations for trainees were hand surgery, cleft lip and palate, lower limb and oncoplastic breast reconstruction. The survey highlighted regional variation in teaching programmes, the ability to achieve indicative operative logbook numbers, and training in aesthetic surgery. Of the trainees, 82% expressed a desire to undertake a fellowship within their training, but most did not know whether their deanery would support this. Fifteen per cent of the respondents were currently training flexibly and the majority of these had experienced negative behaviours towards their less than full time working status. Of the respondents, 44% reported stress, 25% reported a lack of autonomy and 17% reported feeling burnt out at work at least once a week. A total of 85% perceived that they did not have access to a mentoring service. Plastic surgery remains a popular and highly competitive surgical speciality in the UK, and many trainees reported high levels of satisfaction during their training. Aspects of training that could be improved have been highlighted and recommendations made accordingly.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Plastic surgery training in the UK continues to evolve towards an outcome-based rather than time-served curriculum. UK plastic surgery trainees are appointed nationally, and are assessed according to national standards, but training is delivered regionally. This study sought opinion from current UK plastic surgery trainees in order to highlight strengths and shortcomings of the higher surgical training programme.
METHOD METHODS
A cross-sectional study was designed and administered by the UK Plastic Surgery Trainees Association (PLASTA). A questionnaire was distributed to all UK plastic surgery trainees holding a National Training Number, using the REDCap web-based application.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of the 320 UK plastic surgery trainees, 131 (41%) participated in this survey, with responses from all 12 UK training regions. The most common subspecialty career aspirations for trainees were hand surgery, cleft lip and palate, lower limb and oncoplastic breast reconstruction. The survey highlighted regional variation in teaching programmes, the ability to achieve indicative operative logbook numbers, and training in aesthetic surgery. Of the trainees, 82% expressed a desire to undertake a fellowship within their training, but most did not know whether their deanery would support this. Fifteen per cent of the respondents were currently training flexibly and the majority of these had experienced negative behaviours towards their less than full time working status. Of the respondents, 44% reported stress, 25% reported a lack of autonomy and 17% reported feeling burnt out at work at least once a week. A total of 85% perceived that they did not have access to a mentoring service.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Plastic surgery remains a popular and highly competitive surgical speciality in the UK, and many trainees reported high levels of satisfaction during their training. Aspects of training that could be improved have been highlighted and recommendations made accordingly.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32775592
doi: 10.1016/j.jpra.2020.06.003
pii: S2352-5878(20)30026-7
pmc: PMC7394739
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

72-82

Investigateurs

Kavit Amin (K)
James Coelho (J)
Michelle Collins (M)
Elizabeth Concannon (E)
Asmat Din (A)
Susan Hendrickson (S)
Calum Honeyman Amer Hussain (CHA)
Ian King (I)
Karen Lindsay (K)
Serena Martin (S)
Rikki Mistry (R)
Nicholas Segeren (N)
Vikram Sharma (V)
Dimitris Reissis (D)
Clare Rivers (C)
Claire Sin-Hidge (C)
Kirsty Smith (K)
Natasha Wielogorska (N)
Jennifer Wilson (J)
Justin Wormald (J)
Katie Young (K)

Informations de copyright

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. All authors were elected members of the PLASTA Committee. The PLASTA Committee received financial and logistical support from BAPRAS for the financial year 2018–2019 when this survey took place.

Références

Int J Surg. 2016 Nov;36 Suppl 1:S20-S23
pubmed: 27659508
BMJ. 2018 Sep 3;362:k3743
pubmed: 30177545
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Nov;71(11):1532-1538
pubmed: 30217440
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 8;376(23):2211-2222
pubmed: 28591523
Int J Surg. 2012;10(8):399-403
pubmed: 22925631
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Aug;144(2):298e-305e
pubmed: 31348370
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020 Jan;73(1):36-42
pubmed: 31477493
Int J Surg. 2016 Nov;36 Suppl 1:S5-S9
pubmed: 27562689
Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 7;40(30):2475-2477
pubmed: 31390023
Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2012 Feb;73(2):101-5
pubmed: 22504753
Arch Surg. 2012 May;147(5):474-9
pubmed: 22351877
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Feb;135(2):619-26
pubmed: 25357156
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Aug 07;6(8):e1854
pubmed: 30324054
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jan;143(1):315-326
pubmed: 30589810
Ann Surg. 2009 Sep;250(3):463-71
pubmed: 19730177
BMJ. 2018 Oct 30;363:k4530
pubmed: 30377150
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 18;6(4):e010136
pubmed: 27091819
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Sep;53(7):594-8
pubmed: 26130590
Postgrad Med J. 2019 Oct;95(1128):552-557
pubmed: 31375558
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016 Mar 17;4(3):e641
pubmed: 27257571
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017 Oct;70(10):1464-1471
pubmed: 28572042
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013 Jan;95(1):5-7
pubmed: 23317709
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):MR000008
pubmed: 19588449

Auteurs

Matthew Fell (M)

North Bristol NHS Trust, 6 Shrubbery Cottages, Bristol BS6 6SY, United Kingdom.

Robert Staruch (R)

University of Oxford, United Kingdom.

Benjamin G Baker (BG)

Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.

Rebecca Nicholas (R)

Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.

Rachel Howes (R)

Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH