Upper gastrointestinal training in the UK and Ireland: a Roux Group Study.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical training programmes in the United Kingdom and Ireland (UK&I) are in a state of flux. This study aims to report the contemporary opinions of trainee and consultant surgeons on the current upper gastrointestinal (UGI) training model in the UK&I. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and distributed via national UGI societies. Questions pertained to demographics, current training evaluation, perceived requirements and availability. RESULTS: A total of 241 responses were received with representation from all UK&I postgraduate training regions. The biggest discrepancies between rotation demand and national availability related to advanced/therapeutic endoscopy and robotic surgery, with 91.7% of respondents stating they would welcome greater geographical flexibility in training. The median suggested academic targets were 3-5 publications (trainee vs consultant <3 vs 3-5, p<0.001); <3 presentations (<3 vs 3-5, p=0.002); and 3-5 audits/quality improvement projects (<3 vs 3-5, p<0.001). Current operative requirements were considered achievable (87.6%) but inadequate for day one consultant practice (74.7%). Reassuringly, 76.3% deemed there was role for on-the-job operative training following consultant appointment. Proficiency in diagnostic endoscopy was considered a minimum requirement for Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) yet the majority regarded therapeutic endoscopy competency as non-essential. The median numbers of index UGI operations suggested were comparable with the current curriculum requirements. Post-CCT fellowships were not considered necessary; however, the majority (73.6%) recognised their advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Current CCT requirements are largely consistent with the opinions of the UGI community. Areas for improvement include flexibility in geographical working and increasing national provisions for high-quality endoscopy training.

Use of durometry in assessment of venous disease.

OBJECTIVES: Ulceration of the lower limbs is a common debilitating complication of chronic venous hypertension. Detection of preulcerative skin changes would allow for identification of high-risk patients; early active treatment may prevent ulcer formation. METHODS: Patients with isolated venous disease and volunteers attending outpatient clinics underwent assessment of their clinical, aetiological, anatomical and pathological (CEAP) classification. We employed an industrial durometer, an instrument that measures the hardness of metals and plastic, to assess skin induration. The durometer probe was rested perpendicular on their skin 15 cm above the medial malleolus in non-ulcerated tissue, with the patient and limb in recumbency. The average of four measurements was derived. RESULTS: In 107 people, 203 lower limbs (mean age 55.6 years) were assessed. A significant difference in durometry readings was demonstrated between patients with CEAP classes 0, 1 and 2, and those with classes 4, 5 and 6 (P < 0.0005). There was statistically significant evidence that age and CEAP classification correlated with durometry (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Durometry is of potential value in the assessment and monitoring of preulcerative venous disease, and could help to identify high-risk patients. This would assist in the institution of timely and appropriate treatment.

Maximising recruitment into randomised controlled trials: the role of multidisciplinary cancer teams.

Multidisciplinary cancer teams offer many theoretical benefits, although few have been formally examined. This study evaluated the role of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in recruitment into randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Consecutive MDT patient records were categorised into those with or without a recommendation for a national multicentre RCT. Clinical trial office records identified whether patients were subsequently screened and randomised. In 125 MDT meetings, 350 new patients were discussed, of whom 103 were potentially suitable for a RCT. The MDT recommended 68 patients for the trial, of whom 58 (85%) were screened for trial eligibility. Of the 35 without an MDT trial recommendation, only 23 (66%) were screened (p=0.022). This difference persisted and resulted in a greater proportion of MDT recommended patients being recruited (65% versus 49%; p=0.12). This study demonstrates that trial recommendation by an MDT significantly increases trial screening rates and may improve recruitment.