A comparison of operative autonomy between men and women in orthopaedic surgical training in Aotearoa New Zealand.

AIM: Recent studies have shown that women training in surgical and procedural specialties achieve less operative autonomy during training than men do. The aim of this study was to discern if there is a disparity in surgical autonomy for orthopaedic trainees by gender. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of operative procedures performed by 53 orthopaedic trainees (43 men, 10 women) in Aotearoa New Zealand over 10 years. The main outcome measure was the amount of surgical autonomy afforded to individual trainees as recorded in the training logbook, categorised as assisting a: primary surgeon with consultant scrubbed or present; or, primary surgeon unsupervised and teaching a colleague the procedure. RESULTS: Data was obtained for 41,622 procedures in total. Eighty point seven percent were performed by men and 19.3% by women. On average men performed 229 cases per year and women performed 251 cases per year. There was an overall significant difference in autonomy between men and women (p <0.001), with men performing more procedures unsupervised than women (45% of all cases versus 39% of all cases). This difference remained significant when trainee year group was accounted for. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that women orthopaedic trainees in Aotearoa New Zealand perform fewer cases with meaningful autonomy than men. This disparity may have implications for the quality of training received by men versus women.

The Impact on Life questionnaire: validation for elective surgery prioritisation in New Zealand prioritisation criteria in orthopaedic surgery.

AIM: This cohort study tested the reliability and validity of the Impact on Life (IoL) patient-rated questionnaire for use in prioritising orthopaedic procedures. METHODS: Three hundred and twenty-four patients completed the questionnaire during specialist orthopaedic assessments over a 5-month period in 2013. The reliability and validity of the IoL were tested against the SF-12 and Oxford scores. Correlation analysis was used to assess patient- and surgeon-rated scores. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Patient- and surgeon-rated scores were further analysed between patients added to the waiting list and those that were not. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 58 years (range 18-88). Reliability analysis showed the IoL had excellent internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.926, reaching the threshold for clinical application. Construct validity of the IoL was confirmed with significant correlation with other validated quality of life measures (p<0.01). T-tests indicated that patients placed on the waiting list had significantly higher surgeon and IoL scores (p<0.001), compared with those not placed on the waiting list. CONCLUSION: Our results support the IoL as a valid and reliable method of assessing patient-rated quality of life and recommend its use in the Orthopaedic Clinical Priority Assessment Criteria score.

Outpatient follow-up for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in relation to New Zealand Rheumatology Association guidelines at Dunedin Hospital.

AIM: Current treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involves the use of various disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic response agents which require ongoing medical supervision. An audit was undertaken to assess the adequacy of outpatient specialist follow-up for supervision of treatment in patients with RA in the Otago region. METHODS: The Rheumatology Service database was used to assess time between follow-up for the penultimate and last visit to rheumatology outpatient clinic for all patients who made at least two visits between 1 October 2001 and 30 September 2006. Other recorded data included demographic information and clinician expectations for the timing of the next outpatient visit. Comparisons were made between actual follow-up intervals, those indicated by specialists and the follow-up intervals recommended by the New Zealand Rheumatology Association Guidelines. Patients were characterised according to four groups specified in the guidelines: Group A: patients newly started on DMARDs; Group B: patients with some change in disease management: Group C: patient stable on potent medications: Group D: patients stable on less severe medication. RESULTS: According to the guidelines only 40% of patients were followed up within the recommended intervals. Groups A and B (76.9% and 70.6% respectively) had a significantly greater proportion of patients with follow-up at variance to guideline recommendations compared to groups C and D (50% and 45.3% respectively) (p<0.001). There were marked discrepancies between the guideline recommended follow-up intervals and those suggested by the clinicians. Compared with guideline recommendations clinicians advised less frequent follow-up for groups A and B but more frequent for patients in Groups C and D. However, an assessment of the quality of life scores amongst the patients suggested that follow-up was still appropriately targeted to those patients with lower quality of life. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies in follow-up were most marked in the patient groups potentially most at risk of medication-related problems in whom guidelines suggested more intensive monitoring. Additional strategies to promote guideline-based follow-up arrangements may be indicated. Further work should examine the relationships between guideline recommended, physician intended and actual follow-up among rheumatology patients in other regions in order to assess whether modifications should occur to clinician behaviour or guideline content.