Preserving Essential Skills: The Future of Vaginal Hysterectomy Training in Urogynaecology.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the training and self-assessed proficiency of surgeons in the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We focused on the factors that influence decision-making, the surgical techniques employed, the training received, and the management of complications. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING: An electronic questionnaire. POPULATION: European Urogynaecological Association (EUGA) and International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) members. METHODS: A total of 33 questions evaluating surgeon preference regarding vaginal surgeries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics, surgical selection, proficiency and technique, and training methods. RESULTS: There were 471 respondents, of which 273 (58%) dedicated more than 50% of their week to urogynaecology. 250 (53%) had completed a fellowship, with 215 (86%) of those fellowships being in urogynaecology and pelvic floor reconstruction. A preference for hysterectomy in cases of uterine descent was noted by 297 (63%) respondents, influenced mainly by patient preference, age, and prolapse anatomical score. A total of 443 (94%) were proficient in vaginal hysterectomy, with two-thirds performing 30 or fewer procedures annually; 212 (45%) reporting a decrease in the number of procedures over the last decade. Additionally, 373 (79%) respondents believed that 10-30 cases were needed to achieve and maintain proficiency. CONCLUSION: Vaginal hysterectomy remains a key component in uterine prolapse repair. However, with the rise of uterine-sparing prolapse repairs, the decision-making process may be influenced by multiple factors, including surgical training. Emphasis should be placed on training and maintaining proficiency in both traditional and novel techniques.

Subspecialisation in radiology in Europe, a survey of the accreditation council of imaging.

BACKGROUND: To provide an overview of existing Subspecialty Exams and Diplomas in Radiology and their endorsement as well as to providing an insight into the status of subspecialisation in radiology in Europe. The European Training Curriculum for Subspecialisation in Radiology mentions thirteen fields of subspecialisation within radiology. The websites of the corresponding subspecialty societies were checked for Subspecialty Exams and Diplomas. In addition, we performed a survey among European radiologists regarding subspecialisation in radiology. RESULTS: Ten out of 13 European subspecialty societies offer a European subspecialty diploma. At least 7 out of the 10 European subspecialties societies in radiology offering a European subspecialty diploma obtained European Society of Radiology (ESR) endorsement. Two out of 10 obtained European Union of Medical Specialists-Council of European Specialist Medical Assessment endorsement. Survey among European radiologists who were ESR full members in March 2021 demonstrated that almost 20% of respondents indicated that they have no subspecialisation. Another 15% indicated that their area of subspecialisation is not recognised in their country of work. Eighty-four percent of respondents would like their area of subspecialisation in radiology to be officially recognised. According to the respondents, the major benefit of having their subspecialisation in radiology officially recognised is personal interest (45%). CONCLUSIONS: There is a desire for more subspecialty recognition in radiology among European radiologists. Therefore, European subspecialty diplomas in radiology fulfil a need. Furthermore, there is room for further harmonisation and implementation on a European level regarding subspecialty training and recognition in radiology. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: As there is a desire for more subspecialty recognition in radiology among European radiologists, European subspecialty diplomas in radiology fulfil a need and there is still room for further harmonisation and implementation on a European level regarding subspecialty training in radiology. KEY POINTS: • Radiology has 13 subspecialties as per the European Training Curriculum for Subspecialisation. • Currently, 15 subspecialty diplomas are offered by European subspecialty societies in radiology • Members of the European Society of Radiology seek greater recognition of radiology subspecialties.

Is separating obstetrics from gynaecology the way forward? A UK perspective.

A recent editorial in this Journal argued that increasing surgical complexity coupled with more limited training calls for separating obstetrics from gynaecology. The speciality suffers manpower challenges and high attrition rates. There is an apparent gulf in approach between researchers focussing on the views of UK graduates or trainees and workforce planners who address the problem through overseas recruitment. Whilst available literature provides scant, if any, indication as to how to address current challenges, it is important that advocates for women's health assess and mitigate potential drawbacks when exploring the way forward.

Evaluating temporal trends and the impact of surgical subspecialisation on patient outcomes following adhesional small bowel obstruction: a multicentre cohort study.

PURPOSE: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is the most common indication for laparotomy in the UK. While general surgeons have become increasingly subspecialised in their elective practice, emergency admissions commonly remain undifferentiated. This study aimed to assess temporal trends in the management of adhesional SBO and explore the influence of subspecialisation on patient outcomes. METHODS: Data was collected for patients admitted acutely with adhesional SBO across acute NHS trusts in Northern England between 01/01/02 and 31/12/16, including demographics, co-morbidities and procedures performed. Patients were excluded if a potentially non-adhesional cause was identified and were grouped by the responsible consultant's subspecialty. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 2818 patients were admitted with adhesional SBO during a 15-year period. There was a consistent female preponderance, but age and comorbidity increased significantly over time (both p < 0.001). In recent years, more patients were managed operatively with a trend away from delayed surgery also evident (2002-2006: 65.7% vs. 2012-2016: 42.7%, p < 0.001). Delayed surgery was associated with an increased mortality risk on multivariable regression analysis (OR: 2.46 (1.46-4.23, p = 0.001)). CT scanning was not associated with management strategy or timing of surgery (p = 0.369). There was an increased propensity for patients to be managed by gastrointestinal (colorectal and upper gastrointestinal) subspecialists over time. Length of stay (p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (p < 0.001) both improved in recent years, with the best outcomes seen in colorectal (2.6%) and vascular subspecialists (2.4%). However, following adjustment for confounding variables, consultant subspecialty was not a predictor of mortality. CONCLUSION: Outcomes for patients presenting with adhesional SBO have improved despite the increasing burden of age and co-morbidity. While gastrointestinal subspecialists are increasingly responsible for their care, mortality is not influenced by consultant subspecialty.

Relevant vs non-relevant subspecialist for patients hospitalised in internal medicine at a local hospital: which is better? A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Studies of the treatment of patients in-hospital with a specific diagnosis show that physicians with a subspecialisation relevant to this diagnosis can provide a better quality of care. However, studies including patients with a range of diagnoses show a more negligible effect of being attended by a relevant subspecialist. This project aimed to study a more extensive set of patients and diagnoses in an environment where the subspecialist present could be controlled. Thus, this study investigated whether being attended by a physician with a subspeciality relevant to the patient's primary diagnosis was prospectively associated with readmission, in-hospital mortality, or length of stay compared to a physician with a subspeciality not relevant to the patient's primary diagnosis. METHODS: We have conducted a retrospective register-based study of 11,059 hospital admissions across 9 years at a local hospital in south-eastern Norway, where it was possible to identify the physician attending the patients at the beginning of the stay. The outcomes studied were emergency readmissions to the same ward within 30 days, any in-hospital mortality and the total length of stay. The patients admitted were matched with the consultant(s) responsible for their treatment. Then, the admissions were divided into two groups according to their primary diagnosis. Was their diagnosis within the subspeciality of the attending consultant (relevant subspecialist) or not (non-relevant subspecialist). The two groups were then compared using bivariable and multivariable models adjusted for patient characteristics, comorbidities, diagnostic group and physician sex. RESULTS: A relevant subspecialist was present during the first 3 days in 8058 (73%) of the 11,059 patient cases. Patients attended to by a relevant subspecialist had an odds ratio (OR) of 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.09) for being readmitted and 0.71 (0.48 to 1.04) for dying in the hospital and had a length of stay that was 0.18 (- 0.07 to 0.42) days longer than for those attended to by a non-relevant subspecialist. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that patients attended by a relevant subspecialist did not have a significantly different outcome to those attended by a non-relevant subspecialist.

Radiology subspecialisation in Africa: A review of the current status.

BACKGROUND: Radiology subspecialisation is well-established in much of Europe, North America, and Australasia. It is a natural evolution of the radiology speciality catalysed by multiple factors. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to analyse and provide an overview of the current status of radiology subspecialisation in African countries. METHODS: We reviewed English-language articles, reports, and other documents on radiology specialisation and subspecialisation in Africa. RESULTS: There are 54 sovereign countries in Africa (discounting disputed territories). Eighteen African countries with well-established radiology residency training were assessed for the availability of formal subspecialisation training locally. Eight (Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Tunisia) out of the 18 countries have local subspecialist training programmes. Data and/or information on subspecialisation were unavailable for three (Algeria, Libya, and Senegal) of the 18 countries. Paediatric Radiology (Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tunisia) and Interventional Radiology (Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania) were the most frequently available subspecialist training programmes. Except Tanzania, all the countries with subspecialisation training programmes have ≥ 100 radiologists in their workforce. CONCLUSION: There is limited availability of subspecialist radiology training programmes in African countries. Alternative models of subspecialist radiology training are suggested to address this deficit.

Paediatric gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary radiology: why do we need subspecialists, and what is new?

We present the case for subspecialisation in paediatric gastrointestinal and hepato-pancreatico-biliary radiology. We frame the discussion around a number of questions: What is different about the paediatric patient and paediatric gastrointestinal system? What does the radiologist need to do differently? And finally, what can be translated from these subspecialty areas into everyday practice? We cover conditions that the sub-specialist might encounter, focusing on entities such as inflammatory bowel disease and hepatic vascular anomalies. We also highlight novel imaging techniques that are a focus of research in the subspecialties, including contrast-enhanced ultrasound, MRI motility, magnetisation transfer factor, and magnetic resonance elastography.

The challenge of paediatric epilepsy nursing: An interview with Mrs. Jenny O'Brien, paediatric epilepsy nursing specialist at the Wirral University Teaching Hospital, UK.

Epilepsy in childhood is one of the most common neurological disorders encountered in paediatric clinical practice. The current treatment of paediatric epilepsy aims to improve health outcomes, as well as to manage the educational, social and psychological issues that are involved in the quality of life of paediatric patients and their parents. In this direction, in several countries, a specialized, comprehensive, multidisciplinary service has been developed, including paediatric epilepsy nursing, which constitute a key component of this service. According to Mrs. Jennifer O'Brien, one of the pioneering paediatric epilepsy nursing specialists in the UK with a significant contribution in the care of children with epilepsy in Merseyside, the mission of paediatric epilepsy nursing is to enable children with epilepsy and their families to live as normal a life as possible, to ensure that all those who care for the child are well-educated regarding the child's epilepsy and to promote the child's safety and integration into society. She notes that in the past, epilepsy was not considered as a specialty and was looked after by all paediatricians; it is recognised now that it is an incredibly complex group of conditions, which deserves to have specialist management. She believes that although modern technology is crucial in informing and educating families, face to face education and advice is still the most important method of providing support. She highlights the recent advances in genetics of paediatric neurology along with the drive for epilepsy specialists, both nursing and medical, while she estimates that over the following years, paediatric epilepsy nursing will have progressed beyond nowadays expectations.

Perforated diverticulitis in the North of England: trends in patient outcomes, management approach and the influence of subspecialisation.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, several management options have been used in the management of perforated diverticulitis, ranging from conservative treatment to laparotomy. General surgery has also become increasingly specialised over time. This retrospective cohort study investigated changes in patient outcomes following perforated diverticulitis, management approach and the influence of consultant subspecialisation over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected on patients admitted with perforated diverticulitis in the North of England between 2002 and 2016. Subspecialisation was categorised as colorectal or other general subspecialties. The primary outcome of interest was overall 30-day mortality; secondary outcomes included surgical approach, stoma and anastomosis rate. RESULTS: A total of 3394 cases of perforated diverticulitis were analysed (colorectal, n = 1290 and other subspecialists, n = 2104) with a 30-day mortality of 11.6%. There was a significant reduction in mortality over time (2002-2006: 18.6% to 2012-2016: 6.8, P < 0.001).There was a significant reduction in open surgery (60% to 25.3%, P < 0.001) with increased conservative management (37.4% to 63.5%, P < 0.001), laparoscopic resection (0.1% to 4.9%, P < 0.001) and laparoscopic washout (0.1% to 5.7%, P < 0.001).Patients admitted under colorectal surgeons had lower mortality than other subspecialists (9.9% vs 12.4%, P = 0.027), which remained significant following multivariate adjustment (hazard ratio 1.44, P = 0.039). These patients had fewer stomas (13.9% vs. 21.0%, P = 0.001) and higher anastomosis rates (22.1% vs 15.8%, P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated considerable improvements in the management of perforated diverticulitis alongside the positive impact of subspecialisation on patient outcomes.

Evaluating the effects of surgical subspecialisation on patient outcomes following emergency laparotomy: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: General surgeons have become increasingly subspecialised in their elective practice. Emergency laparotomies, however, are performed by a range of subspecialists who may or may not have an interest in the affected area of gastrointestinal tract. This retrospective cohort study evaluates the impact of surgical subspecialisation on patient outcomes following emergency laparotomy. METHODS: Data was collected for patients who underwent an emergency abdominal procedure on the gastrointestinal tract in the North of England from 2001 to 2016. This included demographics, co-morbidities, diagnoses and procedures undertaken. Patients were grouped according to consultants' subspecialist interest. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day postoperative mortality. RESULTS: 24,291 emergency laparotomies were performed with an associated 30-day postoperative mortality of 11.7%. Laparotomies undertaken by upper gastrointestinal (UGI) or colorectal surgeons have significantly lower mortality (10.1%) when compared with other subspecialities (13.5%). More specifically, mortality was decreased for UGI (7.9% vs. 12.9%) and colorectal procedures (10.9% vs. 14.2%) when performed by surgeons with a specialist interest in the relevant area of the gastrointestinal tract (both p < 0.001). The utilisation of laparoscopic surgery is higher, in both UGI (21.8% vs. 9.0%) and colorectal procedures (7.2% vs. 3.5%), when the causative pathology is relevant to the surgeon's subspeciality (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Mortality following emergency laparotomy is improved when performed under the care of gastrointestinal surgeons. Both UGI and colorectal emergency procedures have improved outcomes, with lower mortality and higher rates of laparoscopy, when under the care of a surgeon with a subspecialist interest in the affected area of the gastrointestinal tract.

What is the availability of services for paediatric ENT surgery and paediatric surgery in Africa?

BACKGROUND: Children constitute 50% of Africa's population. Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest under-five mortality rates in the world. This study is the first to document the availability of paediatric ENT and paediatric surgery services in Africa. OBJECTIVE: To determine the availability of paediatric ENT services in Africa, as well as that of paediatric surgery that would complement paediatric ENT. METHOD: A descriptive observational study in the form of an online questionnaire was distributed by email to known ENT and paediatric surgeons based in Africa. RESULTS: Surgeons from twelve of 23 African countries responded to the survey. Seven countries had both ENT and paediatric surgery responses. In 8 of the 11 countries, the number of ENT surgeons per country was<6% of that of the UK, with 1 ENT surgeon per 414,000 people and 1 paediatric surgeon per 1,181,151 people. Ten of 11 countries reported hearing assessments in schools were poor/unavailable. Seventy-three percent responded positively for access to rigid laryngoscopes, bronchoscopes, cameras and fibre optic cables, tracheostomy, anaesthesia and nurse practitioners. Access was reported as poor/unavailable for balloon dilators 73% (8/11 countries); CPAP machines 73% (8/11) and sleep studies 82% (9/11 countries). Flexible endoscopes were available in 50% (4/8 countries), 75% (6/8 countries) had access to a camera, monitor and stack. Thirty-eight percent (3/9 countries) reported no ENT specialists with paediatric training. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great shortage of paediatric ENT and paediatric surgery services in Africa. More regional training opportunities and health infrastructure for these surgical specialties are needed. Collaborative development of paediatric ENT, surgery and anaesthesia should be considered to improve ENT-related child health in Africa.

The Future of Emergency Surgery.

Introduction: Over the past three decades, there has been a recognised need for emergency surgery (ES). Studies of ES have demonstrated variation in patient outcomes depending on admission time or day. ES as a subspecialty is still under consideration in Europe despite being recognised as such in the US. This article reviews this need and addresses the issues required to develop ES as a separate surgical subspecialty in Europe. METHOD: A survey on ES was developed by the Educational Committee of the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) and sent to all ESTES members with 102 responses received. Results: Of the responses, 93.1% had completed training. 75.3% of respondents report that ES should be a recognised subspecialty and 79% report that ES is capable of offering a rewarding career. 90% report that ES should have dedicated post-graduate training programme with 69.8% in agreement that dedicated emergency surgeons have improved outcomes following ES. CONCLUSION: Developing ES as a subspecialty in Europe would improve patient outcomes and facilitate resource allocation. This advancement is, however, still in its infancy and its evolution would require overhaul of our current European system, training methods and understanding of the role of emergency surgeons in ES.

Summary of the proceedings of the International Summit 2015: General and subspecialty radiology.

UNLABELLED: The need for subspecialisation in radiology and the relationship of general and subspecialist radiologists is very diverse in different regions of the world according to the reports presented at the ESR International Summit, organised by the ESR during the European Congress of Radiology in March 2015 in Vienna. The International Summit is held once a year by the ESR and its national and international radiological partner societies from outside Europe with the aim to address and discuss selected subjects of global relevance in radiology. In 2015, the relationship between general and subspecialist radiologists was analysed. It was shown that the situation differs immensely between developed and developing countries; in developed countries, a considerable proportion of radiologists are subspecialty trained; subspecialty radiologists practise mainly in large and academic departments, and many radiologists practise as multispecialty radiologists. In many developing countries only general radiologists-if available at all-practise radiology, and imaging interpretation is often performed by physicians with very limited relevant training or in some cases even by non-physicians. MAIN MESSAGES: • Subspecialisation and preservation of the integrity of the radiology profession are relevant for improved patient care. • Subspecialisation is needed in large departments, providing the basis for innovation and research. • Subspecialty sections should preferably remain within the overarching radiology department. • Shared facilities, efficient use of resources and common organisational structures are beneficial. • A multispecialty radiologist model is an option to build robust academic and private practices.

Subspecialisation in cardiology care and outcome: should clinical services be redesigned, again?

BACKGROUND: Inpatient management of cardiac patients by cardiologists results in reduced mortality and hospitalisation. With increasing subspecialisation of the field because of growing management complexity and use of technological innovations, the impact of sub-specialisation on patient outcomes is unclear. AIM: To investigate whether management by subspecialty cardiologists impacts the outcomes of patients with subspecialty-specific diseases. METHODS: All patients admitted to a tertiary centre over nine years with a diagnosis of heart failure, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or primary arrhythmia were reviewed. The outcomes of these patients managed by cardiologists subspecialised in their admission diagnosis (heart failure specialists, interventionalists and electrophysiologists) were compared with those treated by general cardiologists. RESULTS: Heart failure was diagnosed in 1704 patients, ACS in 7763 and arrhythmia in 4398. There was no difference in length of stay (LOS) (P = 0.26), mortality (P = 0.57) or cardiovascular readmissions (P = 0.50) in heart failure patients treated by general cardiologists compared with subspecialists. In ACS patients, subspecialty management was associated with reduced LOS, cardiovascular readmissions and mortality (all P < 0.05). This reduction in mortality was seen mainly in lower risk patients (P < 0.05). There was a reduction in LOS and cardiovascular readmissions in arrhythmia patients receiving subspecialty management (both P < 0.05) but no difference in mortality (P = 0.14). ACS patients managed by interventionalists were more likely to undergo coronary intervention (P < 0.05). Electrophysiologists more frequently referred patients for catheter ablation and pacemaker implantation than general cardiologists (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of subspecialty care seem attributable to the appropriate selection of patients who would benefit from technological innovations in care. These results suggest that the development of healthcare systems which align cardiovascular disease with the subspecialist may be more effective.