The UK Academic Foundation Programmes: are the objectives being met?

Background Since the Academic Foundation Programme was established in the UK in 2005 a number of trainees have participated in this programme; however, there are few published national data on the experiences of these academic trainees. We aimed to assess the perceived value and challenges of training on the AFP. Methods In March 2017, an anonymous electronic questionnaire was distributed to all Academic Foundation Programme trainees in the UK, via their local foundation school administrators. RESULTS: Fifty-six respondents completed the survey from 9 out of the 15 Academic Units of Application. Of these, 82% were undertaking a research based Academic Foundation Programme; however, 41% reported not having access to any training on research methods and governance. Sixty-six percent reported they were aware of the aims and expected outcomes of the Academic Foundation Programme, but the self-reported achievement of academic compendium outcomes was relatively low. Sixty-three percent rated the quality of their experience on the Academic Foundation Programme as excellent or good and 75% reported that they intended to continue in academia. Most trainees (64%) reported that the completion of a postgraduate qualification as part of their Academic Foundation Programme would improve the programme. Conclusion The Academic Foundation Programme plays a valuable role in trainees' development and preparing them for a career in academia. However, the objectives of the programme are currently not being uniformly achieved. Furthermore, trainees feel there remains room for improvement in the design of the programme.

Use of patient-reported outcome measures in oral and maxillofacial trauma surgery: a review.

In the UK, about one person/100/year sustains a facial injury, so trauma surgery accounts for a considerable part of the caseload in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) allow for patient-centred assessment of postoperative outcomes, but to our knowledge, most research in OMFS trauma does not currently include them. To investigate their use, we searched Medline to find relevant studies that reported outcomes from inception in January 1879 to August 2016. Those not in the English language and those that did not report operations were excluded. We retrieved 416 articles, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria (five randomised controlled trials and 16 cohort studies) yielding 16 outcome measures. Most of these had been devised by authors (eight studies), four studies reported use of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index, and three the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation. Most were used in studies on mandibular surgery (n=13), followed by those on nasal and facial surgery (n=3 each). There is a great heterogeneity in the use of these assessments in OMF trauma. In view of their increasing importance compared with simpler objective measures that may not be relevant to the patients' own perception, more research is needed to establish which of them can be used to measure the QoL of patients treated for OMF trauma.