6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Undergraduate teaching of surgical skills in the UK: systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Students must be proficient in surgical skills according to General Medical Council and Royal College of Surgeons of England guidelines. If these skills are not appropriately taught, there is a risk of an incoming junior workforce with inadequate surgical skills. This paper aimed to review the literature relating to undergraduate teaching of surgical skills in the UK and summarize future suggested training methods.

          Methods

          The databases MEDLINE, Embase and SCOPUS were searched, and the existing literature relating to methodology of undergraduate teaching of surgical skills in the UK over the past 10 years was summarized. The Medical Education Research Quality Instrument was used to assess research quality.

          Results

          A total of 19 papers were included. Cross-sectional evaluations and survey-based studies highlight a clear deficit in surgical skills teaching in the UK. Medical students are currently unable to fulfil their own learning needs and meet requirements set out by the General Medical Council. This lack of surgical teaching appears to negatively affect student desire to pursue a surgical career. The three main themes for improvement are extracurricular surgical skills days, near-peer teaching and simulation. Each method appeared to improve learning, although no studies utilized medium- to long-term follow-up to demonstrate efficacy and there lacks a clear consensus as to the ‘standard’ of undergraduate surgical skill education. There was also potential for selection bias and response shift bias in many of the studies assessing pre- and postintervention confidence and opinions.

          Conclusion

          There is a concerning lack of surgical skills teaching that has resulted in medical students and junior doctors not having the necessary surgical skills as per General Medical Council guidance and students feel that their own learning needs are not met. This failure to address the learning deficit may be responsible for the fall in surgical competition ratios. While surgical skills teaching must be improved urgently, more robust evidence is required to evaluate the optimal ways of approaching this issue.

          Abstract

          Undergraduate medical students must be proficient in certain surgical skills as set out by General Medical Council and Royal College regulations. There appears a deficit in such teaching which we have discussed and attempted to address in terms of alternative methodology reported in the literature that can be used to teach these basic surgical skills.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)

          Analogous to checklists of recommendations such as the CONSORT statement (for randomized trials), or the QUORUM statement (for systematic reviews), which are designed to ensure the quality of reports in the medical literature, a checklist of recommendations for authors is being presented by the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) in an effort to ensure complete descriptions of Web-based surveys. Papers on Web-based surveys reported according to the CHERRIES statement will give readers a better understanding of the sample (self-)selection and its possible differences from a “representative” sample. It is hoped that author adherence to the checklist will increase the usefulness of such reports.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Association between funding and quality of published medical education research.

            Methodological shortcomings in medical education research are often attributed to insufficient funding, yet an association between funding and study quality has not been established. To develop and evaluate an instrument for measuring the quality of education research studies and to assess the relationship between funding and study quality. Internal consistency, interrater and intrarater reliability, and criterion validity were determined for a 10-item medical education research study quality instrument (MERSQI). This was applied to 210 medical education research studies published in 13 peer-reviewed journals between September 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003. The amount of funding obtained per study and the publication record of the first author were determined by survey. Study quality as measured by the MERSQI (potential maximum total score, 18; maximum domain score, 3), amount of funding per study, and previous publications by the first author. The mean MERSQI score was 9.95 (SD, 2.34; range, 5-16). Mean domain scores were highest for data analysis (2.58) and lowest for validity (0.69). Intraclass correlation coefficient ranges for interrater and intrarater reliability were 0.72 to 0.98 and 0.78 to 0.998, respectively. Total MERSQI scores were associated with expert quality ratings (Spearman rho, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.84; P < .001), 3-year citation rate (0.8 increase in score per 10 citations; 95% CI, 0.03-1.30; P = .003), and journal impact factor (1.0 increase in score per 6-unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI, 0.34-1.56; P = .003). In multivariate analysis, MERSQI scores were independently associated with study funding of $20 000 or more (0.95 increase in score; 95% CI, 0.22-1.86; P = .045) and previous medical education publications by the first author (1.07 increase in score per 20 publications; 95% CI, 0.15-2.23; P = .047). The quality of published medical education research is associated with study funding.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis

              Background Reporting standards, such as PRISMA aim to ensure that the methods and results of systematic reviews are described in sufficient detail to allow full transparency. Flow diagrams in evidence syntheses allow the reader to rapidly understand the core procedures used in a review and examine the attrition of irrelevant records throughout the review process. Recent research suggests that use of flow diagrams in systematic reviews is poor and of low quality and called for standardised templates to facilitate better reporting in flow diagrams. The increasing options for interactivity provided by the Internet gives us an opportunity to support easy‐to‐use evidence synthesis tools, and here we report on the development of a tool for the production of PRISMA 2020‐compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Methods and Findings We developed a free‐to‐use, Open Source R package and web‐based Shiny app to allow users to design PRISMA flow diagrams for their own systematic reviews. Our tool allows users to produce standardised visualisations that transparently document the methods and results of a systematic review process in a variety of formats. In addition, we provide the opportunity to produce interactive, web‐based flow diagrams (exported as HTML files), that allow readers to click on boxes of the diagram and navigate to further details on methods, results or data files. We provide an interactive example here; https://prisma-flowdiagram.github.io/ . Conclusions We have developed a user‐friendly tool for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams for users with coding experience and, importantly, for users without prior experience in coding by making use of Shiny ( https://estech.shinyapps.io/prisma_flowdiagram/ ). This free‐to‐use tool will make it easier to produce clear and PRISMA 2020‐compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Significantly, users can also produce interactive flow diagrams for the first time, allowing readers of their reviews to smoothly and swiftly explore and navigate to further details of the methods and results of a review. We believe this tool will increase use of PRISMA flow diagrams, improve the compliance and quality of flow diagrams, and facilitate strong science communication of the methods and results of systematic reviews by making use of interactivity. We encourage the systematic review community to make use of the tool, and provide feedback to streamline and improve their usability and efficiency.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BJS Open
                BJS Open
                bjsopen
                BJS Open
                Oxford University Press (US )
                2474-9842
                October 2023
                11 October 2023
                11 October 2023
                : 7
                : 5
                : zrad083
                Affiliations
                School of Medicine, Cardiff University , Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK
                School of Medicine, Cardiff University , Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK
                School of Medicine, Cardiff University , Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK
                School of Medicine, Cardiff University , Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK
                School of Medicine, Cardiff University , Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK
                School of Medicine, University of St Andrews , St Andrews, Fife, UK
                Department of Plastic Surgery, St Thomas’ Hospital, Guys and St Thomas’ Trust , London, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Sean C. Glossop, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff University Heath Park Campus, Cardiff, South Glamorgan CF14 4YS, UK (e-mail: seancglossop@ 123456gmail.com )
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8495-0860
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7902-8182
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4200-4929
                Article
                zrad083
                10.1093/bjsopen/zrad083
                10566575
                37819804
                c59e9a94-9921-4db8-872d-49860618f321
                © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 04 February 2023
                : 16 April 2023
                : 13 July 2023
                Page count
                Pages: 9
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                AcademicSubjects/MED00910
                Bjs/11

                Comments

                Comment on this article