Teaching in Paediatrics for UK Foundation Doctors: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background Most doctors will care for children regularly during their careers in settings such as the emergency department, general practice, surgery, or, for a minority, during paediatric specialist training. As such, exposure to topics related to child health ought to be part of the broad curriculum of learning offered to UK Foundation Programme doctors. Objective This study aimed to quantify teaching in paediatrics that is accessed by Foundation doctors. Methods A cross-sectional electronic survey of foundation year one or two (F1/F2) doctors at the end of the 2020-2021 academic year. Ethical approval was granted by the Imperial College London (ICL) Education Ethics Review Process (EERP 2021-082). Results Two-hundred and five Foundation doctors completed the survey, from 16 of the 18 Foundation schools. Respondents attended a median of two hours (interquartile range (IQR) 0-10) of paediatric teaching during the past 12 months, including a median of one hour (IQR 0-2) of core teaching and a median of one hour (IQR 0-9) of non-core teaching. Those who had worked in a paediatric post in the past 12 months, or who were interested in Paediatrics as a career, attended more median hours of teaching. Conclusions Although many doctors will care for children routinely during their later careers, the number of teaching hours in paediatrics experienced by Foundation doctors is low. The UK Foundation Programme should incorporate more teaching in paediatrics to increase exposure to child health amongst newly graduated and as-yet unspecialised doctors.

Social and Educational Outcomes in Patients With Biliary Atresia: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the social outcomes of patients with biliary atresia (BA), including educational, employment and family outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, Global Health, Maternity and Infant Care Database, supplemented by reference searching. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute scoring was conducted for quality assessment. The PROSPERO registration ID was CRD42020178846. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included (41 cohort, 10 cross-sectional), including 4631 participants across 16 countries. Cohorts were BA post-liver transplant (LT) (18 studies), native liver survivors (NLS) (16 studies), mixed (13 studies) and four other cohorts. Outcomes covered; education (n = 35), employment (n = 16), family outcomes (n = 22), and social functioning (n = 22). BA patients had lower school functioning scores than controls, with no difference between NLS versus post-LT. Between 2% and 48% of children required additional educational support. Between 60% and 100% of adult patients with BA were employed. Pregnancies were described in 17 studies, with small samples, and some noted complications. Social functioning scores were similar to healthy controls in 8 of 11 comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Despite BA being the primary indication for liver transplantation in childhood, social outcomes for children and adolescents are predominantly reported in non-controlled, single-centre survey-based studies. School functioning is lower compared to peer groups, with no evidence of a difference for those having a liver transplant. We recommend routine psychosocial assessment of these patients during follow-up, alongside multi-centre collaborations, to maximise the quality of evidence for future patients.

Clinical specialty training in UK undergraduate medical schools: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if increased exposure to clinical specialties at medical school is associated with increased interest in pursuing that specialty as a career after foundation training. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: 31 UK medical schools were asked how much time students spend in each of the clinical specialties. We excluded two schools that were solely Graduate Entry, and two schools were excluded for insufficient information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time spent on clinical placement from UK undergraduate medical schools, and the training destinations of graduates from each school. A general linear model was used to analyse the relationship between the number of weeks spent in a specialty at medical school and the percentage of graduates from that medical school entering each of the Core Training (CT1)/Specialty Training (ST1) specialties directly after Foundation Year 2 (FY2). RESULTS: Students spend a median of 85 weeks in clinical training. This includes a median of 28 weeks on medical firms, 15 weeks in surgical firms, and 8 weeks in general practice (GP). In general, the number of training posts available in a specialty was proportionate to the number of weeks spent in medical school, with some notable exceptions including GP. Importantly, we found that the number of weeks spent in a specialty at medical school did not predict the percentage of graduates of that school training in that specialty at CT1/ST1 level (ß coefficient=0.061, p=0.228). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that there was no correlation between the percentage of FY2 doctors appointed directly to a CT1/ST1 specialty and the length of time that they would have spent in those specialties at medical school. This suggests that curriculum adjustments focusing solely on length of time spent in a specialty in medical school would be unlikely to solve recruitment gaps in individual specialties.

A systematic review of complementary feeding practices in South Asian infants and young children: the Bangladesh perspective.

BACKGROUND: Sub-optimal nutrition among children remains a problem across South Asia (SA). Appropriate complementary feeding practices (CFP) can greatly reduce this risk. The primary objective of this systematic review (SR) of CF studies was to assess timing, dietary diversity, meal frequency and influencing factors in children under two in Bangladesh. METHODS: Searches included English-language research published between January 2000 and June 2016 within MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Web of Science, OVID Maternity & Infant Care, BanglaJOL, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, POPLINE and WHO Global Health Library. Eligibility criteria: primary research concerning the adequacy of complementary feeding practices in South Asian children aged 0-2 years and/or their families. We excluded interventional papers and those focusing exclusively on breast-feeding. In total 45,712 titles and abstracts were screened against inclusion criteria, 860 of which received independent full text review by two reviewers. 36 papers relevant to Bangladesh were identified. The 'EPPI-Centre Weight of Evidence Framework' was used to objectively assess each study's value in answering the review question. As per WHO Infant and Young Children Feeding Guidelines (IYCF), introduction of CF was assessed as the proportion of infants aged 6-8 months who received solid, semi-solid or soft foods. Search terms were: "children", "feeding" and "Asians" with their derivatives. Two researchers undertook study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. RESULTS: Three cohort, 30 cross-sectional and 3 mixed methods studies were included. Despite adopting the WHO IYCF Guidelines, sub-optimal CF practices were found in many studies. Timely initiation of CF practices ranged from 24 to 83%. Achieved minimum dietary diversity ranged from 25% to 44% and minimum meal frequency from 33% to 81%. Influencing factors included maternal education, poor knowledge of CF practices and socioeconomic variables. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review to evaluate CF practices in Bangladesh. Despite adoption of the WHO IYCF guidelines, inadequate CFP remain in communities across Bangladesh. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration No: CRD42014014025.

An international randomised controlled trial to compare TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT) with conventional postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for women with early-stage breast cancer (the TARGIT-A trial).

BACKGROUND: Based on our laboratory work and clinical trials we hypothesised that radiotherapy after lumpectomy for breast cancer could be restricted to the tumour bed. In collaboration with the industry we developed a new radiotherapy device and a new surgical operation for delivering single-dose radiation to the tumour bed - the tissues at highest risk of local recurrence. We named it TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT). From 1998 we confirmed its feasibility and safety in pilot studies. OBJECTIVE: To compare TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach with whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) over several weeks. DESIGN: The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Alone (TARGIT-A) trial was a pragmatic, prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority, non-blinded, randomised (1 : 1 ratio) clinical trial. Originally, randomisation occurred before initial lumpectomy (prepathology) and, if allocated TARGIT, the patient received it during the lumpectomy. Subsequently, the postpathology stratum was added in which randomisation occurred after initial lumpectomy, allowing potentially easier logistics and a more stringent case selection, but which needed a reoperation to reopen the wound to give TARGIT as a delayed procedure. The risk-adapted approach meant that, in the experimental arm, if pre-specified unsuspected adverse factors were found postoperatively after receiving TARGIT, EBRT was recommended. Pragmatically, this reflected how TARGIT would be practised in the real world. SETTING: Thirty-three centres in 11 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Women who were aged ≥ 45 years with unifocal invasive ductal carcinoma preferably ≤ 3.5 cm in size. INTERVENTIONS: TARGIT within a risk-adapted approach and whole-breast EBRT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was absolute difference in local recurrence, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5%. Secondary outcome measures included toxicity and breast cancer-specific and non-breast-cancer mortality. RESULTS: In total, 3451 patients were recruited between March 2000 and June 2012. The following values are 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates for TARGIT compared with EBRT. There was no statistically significant difference in local recurrence between TARGIT and EBRT. TARGIT was non-inferior to EBRT overall [TARGIT 3.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1% to 5.1% vs. EBRT 1.3%, 95% CI 0.7% to 2.5%; p = 0.04; Pnon-inferiority = 0.00000012] and in the prepathology stratum (n = 2298) when TARGIT was given concurrently with lumpectomy (TARGIT 2.1%, 95% CI 1.1% to 4.2% vs. EBRT 1.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.5%; p = 0.31; Pnon-inferiority = 0.0000000013). With delayed TARGIT postpathology (n = 1153), the between-group difference was larger than 2.5% and non-inferiority was not established for this stratum (TARGIT 5.4%, 95% CI 3.0% to 9.7% vs. EBRT 1.7%, 95% CI 0.6% to 4.9%; p = 0.069; Pnon-inferiority = 0.06640]. The local recurrence-free survival was 93.9% (95% CI 90.9% to 95.9%) when TARGIT was given with lumpectomy compared with 92.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 94.6%) for EBRT (p = 0.35). In a planned subgroup analysis, progesterone receptor (PgR) status was found to be the only predictor of outcome: hormone-responsive patients (PgR positive) had similar 5-year local recurrence with TARGIT during lumpectomy (1.4%, 95% CI 0.5% to 3.9%) as with EBRT (1.2%, 95% CI 0.5% to 2.9%; p = 0.77). Grade 3 or 4 radiotherapy toxicity was significantly reduced with TARGIT. Overall, breast cancer mortality was much the same between groups (TARGIT 2.6%, 95% CI 1.5% to 4.3% vs. EBRT 1.9%, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.2%; p = 0.56) but there were significantly fewer non-breast-cancer deaths with TARGIT (1.4%, 95% CI 0.8% to 2.5% vs. 3.5%, 95% CI 2.3% to 5.2%; p = 0.0086), attributable to fewer deaths from cardiovascular causes and other cancers, leading to a trend in reduced overall mortality in the TARGIT arm (3.9%, 95% CI 2.7% to 5.8% vs. 5.3%, 95% CI 3.9% to 7.3%; p = 0.099]. Health economic analyses suggest that TARGIT was statistically significantly less costly than EBRT, produced similar quality-adjusted life-years, had a positive incremental net monetary benefit that was borderline statistically significantly different from zero and had a probability of > 90% of being cost-effective. There appears to be little uncertainty in the point estimates, based on deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. If TARGIT were given instead of EBRT in suitable patients, it might potentially reduce costs to the health-care providers in the UK by £8-9.1 million each year. This does not include environmental, patient and societal costs. LIMITATIONS: The number of local recurrences is small but the number of events for local recurrence-free survival is not as small (TARGIT 57 vs. EBRT 59); occurrence of so few events (< 3.5%) also implies that both treatments are effective and any difference is unlikely to be large. Not all 3451 patients were followed up for 5 years; however, more than the number of patients required to answer the main trial question (n = 585) were followed up for > 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with breast cancer (women who are aged ≥ 45 years with hormone-sensitive invasive ductal carcinoma that is up to 3.5 cm in size), TARGIT concurrent with lumpectomy within a risk-adapted approach is as effective as, safer than and less expensive than postoperative EBRT. FUTURE WORK: The analyses will be repeated with longer follow-up. Although this may not change the primary result, the larger number of events may confirm the effect on overall mortality and allow more detailed subgroup analyses. The TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy Boost (TARGIT-B) trial is testing whether or not a tumour bed boost given intraoperatively (TARGIT) boost is superior to a tumour bed boost given as part of postoperative EBRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34086741 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00983684. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals (UCLH)/University College London (UCL) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UCLH Charities, Ninewells Cancer Campaign, National Health and Medical Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). From September 2009 this project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.