Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Surgical curriculum concordance: requiem for the educational dream
  1. Oliver Luton1,
  2. Osian Penri James1,
  3. Katie Mellor1,
  4. Arfon Powell2,
  5. Luke Hopkins1,3,
  6. David Bryan Thomas Robinson1,
  7. Richard Egan3,
  8. Wyn Lewis1
  1. 1School of Surgery, NHS Wales Health Education and Improvement Wales, Nantgarw, Rhondda Cynon Taff, UK
  2. 2Division of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
  3. 3Department of Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
  1. Correspondence to Oliver Luton, School of surgery, NHS Wales Health Education and Improvement Wales, Cardiff CF15 7QQ, Rhondda Cynon Taff, UK; oliverwluton{at}gmail.com

Abstract

This study aimed to analyse the degree of relative variation in speciality-specific competencies required for Certification of Completion of Training (CCT) set by the UK Joint Committee for Surgical Training (JCST) 2021 curriculum. Regulatory body guidance related to operative and non-operative surgical skill competencies required for CCT were analysed and compared. Wide inter-speciality variation was demonstrated in the minimum number of logbook cases (median 815; range 54 to 2100), indexed operations (8; 5 to 24) and procedure-based assessments (35; 6 to 110). Academic competencies related to peer-reviewed publications, communications to learned societies and audits were aligned at zero, zero and three across specialities, respectively. Mandatory courses have been standardised with Advanced Trauma Life Support being the sole pre-requisite CCT for all. JCST certification guidelines have broadly standardised competency domains, yet large discrepancies persist regarding operative indicative numbers and assessments. This article serves as a definitive CCT guide regarding prevailing changes.

  • surgery

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Twitter @Lutonoliver, @PowArG07, @daverobinson90, @wynglewis

  • OL and OPJ contributed equally.

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it first published. The provenance and peer review statement has been included.

  • Contributors OL – Data collection, original drafting, submission. OPJ – Data analysis, proofing. KM – Data collection, proofing. AP – Proofing. LH – Literature review, proofing. DBTR – Literature review, proofing. RE – Proofing. WL – Study design, critical review.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Disclaimer Data, analytical methods and study materials will be made available to other researchers on reasonable request from the corresponding author. Authors did not preregister the research with in an independent, institutional registry.

  • Competing interests OPJ was supported by a joint research fellowship from Royal College of Surgeons England and HEIW.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.