The clinical frailty scale as a predictor of orthopaedic outcomes: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a 9-point scaling system used to categorise the frailty of patients. The CFS is well-established as a prognostic tool for decision-making within healthcare settings. However, the relationship between the CFS as a predictor for orthopaedic outcomes is limited. This review aims to provide an overview of the efficacy of the CFS as a prognostic tool for predicting orthopaedic outcomes. METHODS: Systematic review using PRISMA checklist (PROSPERO registered: CRD42023456648). Ovid and PubMed databases were searched using defined search terms to identify English language papers between 2007 and June 2023 which fit the inclusion criteria. Abstract screening was carried out independently and included studies proceeded to full-text review. RESULTS: 10 studies were identified. Studies used a range of outcome measures to assess success, including gross outcomes like mortality rates, as well as more specific functional outcomes, such as joint functionality scores. Studies identified that higher CFS scores correlate to poorer outcomes within orthopaedic patients. These include higher rates of mortality (41.7 % at one-year post proximal femur fracture for CFS ≥ 7), longer length of hospital stay and increased risk of adverse events post-procedure (both increased linearly from CFS 1 to 4). Additionally, the CFS was shown to be a strong prognostic tool when compared to other frailty scales. The number of studies that evaluated the relationship between the CFS and joint functionality scores is limited. CONCLUSION: Higher CFS scores are associated with poorer orthopaedic outcomes. However, it is difficult to quantify the true impact due to the limited number of high-quality studies. Further work to characterise the relationship between both gross and functional outcomes associated with the utilisation of the CFS in orthopaedic settings is essential to ascertain the utility of this simple score to improve resource allocation and provide effective consent to patients.

Undergraduate teaching of surgical skills in the UK: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Students must be proficient in surgical skills according to General Medical Council and Royal College of Surgeons of England guidelines. If these skills are not appropriately taught, there is a risk of an incoming junior workforce with inadequate surgical skills. This paper aimed to review the literature relating to undergraduate teaching of surgical skills in the UK and summarize future suggested training methods. METHODS: The databases MEDLINE, Embase and SCOPUS were searched, and the existing literature relating to methodology of undergraduate teaching of surgical skills in the UK over the past 10 years was summarized. The Medical Education Research Quality Instrument was used to assess research quality. RESULTS: A total of 19 papers were included. Cross-sectional evaluations and survey-based studies highlight a clear deficit in surgical skills teaching in the UK. Medical students are currently unable to fulfil their own learning needs and meet requirements set out by the General Medical Council. This lack of surgical teaching appears to negatively affect student desire to pursue a surgical career. The three main themes for improvement are extracurricular surgical skills days, near-peer teaching and simulation. Each method appeared to improve learning, although no studies utilized medium- to long-term follow-up to demonstrate efficacy and there lacks a clear consensus as to the 'standard' of undergraduate surgical skill education. There was also potential for selection bias and response shift bias in many of the studies assessing pre- and postintervention confidence and opinions. CONCLUSION: There is a concerning lack of surgical skills teaching that has resulted in medical students and junior doctors not having the necessary surgical skills as per General Medical Council guidance and students feel that their own learning needs are not met. This failure to address the learning deficit may be responsible for the fall in surgical competition ratios. While surgical skills teaching must be improved urgently, more robust evidence is required to evaluate the optimal ways of approaching this issue.

A cross-sectional evaluation of the current state of wound healing education in the United Kingdom's undergraduate medical curriculum.

Between 2013 and 2018, there has been a 71% increase in the number of patients who have required wound care in the NHS and such large numbers has placed a significant burden on healthcare systems. However, there is currently no evidence as to whether medical students are equipped with the necessary skills to deal with an increasing number of wound care related issues that patients present with. A total of 323 medical students across 18 UK medical schools completed an anonymous questionnaire evaluating the wound education received at their medical school, encompassing the volume, content, format and efficacy of teaching. 68.4% (221/323) of respondents had received some form of wound education during their undergraduate studies. On average students received 2.25 h of structured, preclinical teaching and only 1 h of clinical based teaching in total. All students that received wound education reported undertaking teaching on the physiology of, and factors affecting wound healing, with only 32.2% (n = 104) of students receiving clinically based wound education There was very weak correlation and no significant association in student's ability to assess wounds (R2 = 0.190, p = 0.013), manage wounds (R2 = 0.060, p = 0.37), and prescribe wound care products (R2 = 0.093, p = 0.18) with their stage of training. Students strongly agreed that wound education is an important part of the undergraduate curriculum and post graduate practice, and do not feel their learning needs have been met. This is the first study to assess the provision of wound education in the United Kingdom, demonstrating a clear deficit in the provision of wound education compared to expectation of junior doctors. Wound education is largely overlooked in the medical curriculum, lacks a clinical focus and does not prepare junior doctors with the necessary clinical abilities to deal with wound related pathology. Expert opinion to direct changes to future curriculum and further evaluation of teaching methodology is required to address this deficit and ensure students have the necessary clinical skills to excel as newly graduated doctors.

Undergraduate education of trauma and orthopaedic surgery in the UK : a systematic review.

AIMS: Evidence exists of a consistent decline in the value and time that medical schools place upon their undergraduate orthopaedic placements. This limited exposure to trauma and orthopaedics (T&O) during medical school will be the only experience in the speciality for the majority of doctors. This review aims to provide an overview of undergraduate orthopaedic training in the UK. METHODS: This review summarizes the relevant literature from the last 20 years in the UK. Articles were selected from database searches using MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane, and Web of Science. A total of 16 papers met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The length of exposure to T&O is declining; the mean total placement duration of two to three weeks is significantly less than the four- to six-week minimum advised by most relevant sources. The main teaching methods described in the literature included didactic lectures, bedside teaching, and small group case-based discussions. Students preferred interactive, blended learning teaching styles over didactic methods. This improvement in satisfaction was reflected in improvements in student assessment scores. However, studies failed to assess competencies in clinical skills and examinations, which is consistent with the opinions of UK foundation year doctors, approximately 40% of whom report a "poor" understanding of orthopaedics. Furthermore, the majority of UK doctors are not exposed to orthopaedics at the postgraduate level, which only serves to amplify the disparity between junior and generalist knowledge, and the standards expected by senior colleagues and professional bodies. CONCLUSION: There is a deficit in undergraduate orthopaedic training within the UK which has only worsened in the last 20 years, leaving medical students and foundation doctors with a potentially significant lack of orthopaedic knowledge. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):549-556.