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.