Should surgical outcomes be published?

Despite publishing surgical outcomes being a positive step forwards in the progression of England's healthcare system, it has no doubt been faced with criticism and reservations. This review article aims to discuss the pros and cons of publishing individual surgical outcomes, as well as the challenges faced. Publishing outcomes requires data from a number of sources such as national clinical audits, hospital episode statistics, patient-reported outcomes, registers and information from revalidation. As yet, eight surgical specialties have begun publishing their data, including cardiac (coronary artery bypass graft, valve and aortic surgery), endocrine (thyroidectomy, lobectomy, isthmusectomy), orthopaedic (hip and knee replacement), urological (full and partial nephrectomies, nephroureterectomy), colorectal (bowel tumour removal), upper gastrointestinal (stomach cancer and oesophageal cancer removal, bariatric surgery), ear, nose and throat surgery (larynx, oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx and salivary gland cancer removal), as well as vascular surgery (abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy). However, not all procedures have been addressed. Despite the controversy surrounding the topic of publishing surgical outcomes, the advantages of reporting outcomes outweigh the disadvantages, and these challenges can be overcome, to create a more reliable, trustworthy and transparent NHS. Perhaps one of the main challenges has been the difficulty in collecting large amounts of clinically significant data able to quantify the performance of surgeons.

An overview of the use and implementation of checklists in surgical specialities - a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical procedures present an immense risk to patients, and adverse patient outcomes are frequently due to substandard non-technical skills amongst surgical staff. The implementation of a 19-item Surgical Safety Checklist, developed by the World Health Organization, is being enforced in operating theatres globally. The objective is to systematically analyze published literature to assess the use of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and their impact in on patient safety. METHODS: An English literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases. Relevant information was extracted relating to surgical specialities, compliance with the checklist, effects of checklist use on patient outcomes, and staff perceptions of the checklist. Selection was restricted to articles that used the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. RESULTS: The literature search found 916 potentially relevant articles, which were narrowed down following an abstract review and a full text review. A final total of 16 studies were identified that observed the use of checklists in various surgical specialties; all surgical specialities (n-10), pediatric surgery (n-2), orthopedic surgery (n-2), otorhinolaryngology surgery (n-2). DISCUSSION: Surgical checklists have been shown to significantly improve patient outcomes subsequent to surgery, and therefore their use is being widely encouraged and accepted. Continual feedback could be given to maintain high checklist compliance, and thus high patient safety. SUMMARY: The recent use of checklists in surgery has shown improvements in patient outcomes post-operatively. A review was conducted to establish the impact of the checklist on different surgical specialities.

Performance of technology-driven simulators for medical students--a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based education has evolved as a key training tool in high-risk industries such as aviation and the military. In parallel with these industries, the benefits of incorporating specialty-oriented simulation training within medical schools are vast. Adoption of simulators into medical school education programs has shown great promise and has the potential to revolutionize modern undergraduate education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An English literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and psychINFO databases to identify all randomized controlled studies pertaining to "technology-driven" simulators used in undergraduate medical education. A validity framework incorporating the "framework for technology enhanced learning" report by the Department of Health, United Kingdom, was used to evaluate the capabilities of each technology-driven simulator. Information was collected regarding the simulator type, characteristics, and brand name. Where possible, we extracted information from the studies on the simulators' performance with respect to validity status, reliability, feasibility, education impact, acceptability, and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: We identified 19 studies, analyzing simulators for medical students across a variety of procedure-based specialities including; cardiovascular (n = 2), endoscopy (n = 3), laparoscopic surgery (n = 8), vascular access (n = 2), ophthalmology (n = 1), obstetrics and gynecology (n = 1), anesthesia (n = 1), and pediatrics (n = 1). Incorporation of simulators has so far been on an institutional level; no national or international trends have yet emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Simulators are capable of providing a highly educational and realistic experience for the medical students within a variety of speciality-oriented teaching sessions. Further research is needed to establish how best to incorporate simulators into a more primary stage of medical education; preclinical and clinical undergraduate medicine.

A review of the available urology skills training curricula and their validation.

BACKGROUND: The transforming field of urological surgery continues to demand development of novel training devices and curricula for its trainees. Contemporary trainees have to balance workplace demands while overcoming the cognitive barriers of acquiring skills in rapidly multiplying and advancing surgical techniques. This article provides a brief review of the process involved in developing a surgical curriculum and the current status of real and simulation-based curricula in the 4 subgroups of urological surgical practice: open, laparoscopic, endoscopic, and robotic. METHODS: An informal literature review was conducted to provide a snapshot into the variety of simulation training tools available for technical and nontechnical urological surgical skills within all subgroups of urological surgery using the following keywords: "urology, surgery, training, curriculum, validation, non-technical skills, technical skills, LESS, robotic, laparoscopy, animal models." Validated training tools explored in research were tabulated and summarized. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A total of 20 studies exploring validated training tools were identified. Huge variation was noticed in the types of validity sought by researchers and suboptimal incorporation of these tools into curricula was noted across the subgroups of urological surgery. The following key recommendations emerge from the review: adoption of simulation-based curricula in training; better integration of dedicated training time in simulated environments within a trainee's working hours; better incentivization for educators and assessors to improvise, research, and deliver teaching using the technologies available; and continued emphasis on developing nontechnical skills in tandem with technical operative skills.