Gender diversity in UK surgical specialties: a national observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare gender diversity between UK surgical specialties, assess trends over time, and estimate when gender parity might be achieved. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: National Health Service, UK. PARTICIPANTS: NHS Hospital & Community Health Service workforce statistics for 2011 to 2020 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to compare female representation in 2020 between surgical specialties, and to examine for any significant trends between 2011 and 2020. The method of least squares was used to estimate when female representation of specialty registrars would reach 50% ('gender parity') for specialties with <40% female representation. RESULTS: In 2020, female consultant and specialty registrar representation was significantly different between surgical specialties (both p<0.001). Female representation for each specialty were as follows (from highest to lowest): Specialty Registrars-Ophthalmology 49.7%, Otolaryngology 48.2%, Paediatric Surgery 45.5%, Plastic Surgery 42.2%, General Surgery 39.8%, Urology 31.6%, Vascular Surgery 25.0%, Neurosurgery 24.7%, Cardiothoracic Surgery 21.3%, and Trauma and Orthopaedics 20.6%; Consultants-Ophthalmology 32.4%, Paediatric Surgery 31.7%, Plastic Surgery 20.9%, General Surgery 17.5%, Otolaryngology 17%, Vascular Surgery 13.7%, Urology 11.7%, Cardiothoracic Surgery 10.8%, Neurosurgery 8.2%, and Trauma and Orthopaedics 7.3%. There was a significant positive trend in female representation of specialty registrars between 2011 and 2020 for all specialties except for Paediatric Surgery (representation consistently >45%) and Vascular Surgery (representation consistently <30%). General Surgery was estimated to achieve gender parity of their specialty registrars by 2028, Urology by 2033, Neurosurgery by 2064, Trauma and Orthopaedics by 2070, and Cardiothoracic Surgery by 2082. CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements over the last decade, gender disparity persists in the UK surgical workforce and there are significant differences between surgical specialties. Further work is necessary to establish the reasons for these observed differences with a specific focus on Vascular Surgery, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Neurosurgery, and Trauma and Orthopaedics.

Percutaneous nephrostomy in obstructing pelvic malignancy does not facilitate further oncological treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with ureteric obstruction in advanced malignancy is unclear. How quality of life is affected by a nephrostomy and how many of these patients undergo further oncological treatment remains uncertain. The objective of this retrospective multicentre study was to look at the outcomes of patients who had percutaneous nephrostomy insertion for malignancy. METHODS: We identified patients who had a nephrostomy inserted for ureteric obstruction due to malignancy at our institution from January 2015 to December 2018. We obtained data retrospectively from our electronic patient record system. Patients who had nephrostomy insertion for other causes such as ureteric calculi or injury were excluded from the study. RESULTS: 105 patients underwent nephrostomy insertion during this time interval. 51.42% patients (n = 54) had urological malignancies (bladder and/or prostate cancer). The median LOS was 14 days (range 1-104 days) post-procedure and 39.04% (n = 41) had at least one 30-day readmission to hospital. The average starting creatinine level was 348 mmol/L (range 49-1133) and the average creatinine at discharge was 170 mmol/L (range 44-651). Although the average change in the creatinine (190 mmol/L) is statistically significant (p < 0.001), it did not seem to prolong life of the patients. Only 26 (24.76%) patients were alive (all-cause mortality) at the end of the 4-year period with an average life expectancy of 139 days following nephrostomy. Only 30.47% (n = 32) patients underwent further oncological treatment. CONCLUSION: In our series, most patients who had nephrostomy insertion for ureteric obstruction due to malignancy had no further oncological treatment following insertion. Percutaneous nephrostomy is a procedure not without associated morbidity and does not always prolong survival. Due to the poor prognosis in cases of advanced malignancy, we advocate multi-disciplinary decision-making prior to nephrostomy insertion.