A cross-sectional study examining the association between MRCS performance and surgeons receiving sanctions against their medical registration.

BACKGROUND: Fitness to practice (FtP) investigations by the General Medical Council (GMC) safeguard patients and maintain the integrity of the medical profession. The likelihood of FtP sanctions is influenced by specialty and socio-demographic factors and can be predicted by performance at postgraduate examinations. This is the first study to characterise the prevalence of FtP sanctions in early-career surgeons and to examine the association with performance at the Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination. METHODS: All UK graduates who attempted MRCS between September 2007-January 2020 were matched to the GMC list of registered medical practitioners. Clinicians who had active FtP sanctions between 28th August 2018 and 28th August 2020 were identified. Data were anonymised by RCS England prior to analysis. RESULTS: Of 11,660 candidates who attempted MRCS within the study period, only 31 (0.3%) had FtP sanctions between 2018 and 2020. Of these, 12 had active conditions on registration, seven had undertakings and 14 had warnings. There was no statistically significant difference in MRCS performance in either Parts A or B of the examination for those with and those free from FtP sanctions (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this, the largest study of MRCS candidates to date, the prevalence of active FtP sanctions in early-career surgeons was 0.3%, significantly lower than the prevalence of sanctions across more experienced UK surgeons (0.9%). These data highlight early-career surgeons as a low-risk group for disciplinary action and should reassure patients and medical professionals of the rarity of FtP sanctions.

Which factors predict success in the mandatory UK postgraduate surgical exam: The Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS)?

BACKGROUND: The Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons examination (MRCS, Parts A and B) is one of the largest postgraduate surgical exams in the world, but little is known about the factors that affect candidate performance. We describe the relationship between both parts of MRCS and several independent predictors of MRCS success. METHODS: Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the linear relationship between MRCS Part A and B and logistic regression analysis to identify potential independent predictors of MRCS success. We included all UK medical graduates who attempted either part of MRCS between 2007 and 2016. RESULTS: 7896 candidates made 11,867 attempts at Part A and 4310 made 5738 attempts at Part B. A positive correlation was found between Part A and B first attempt score (r = 0.41, P < 0.001). Gender (male vs. female, odds ratio (OR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83-4.19), ethnicity (white vs. Black Minority and Ethnic, OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.52-1.89), stage of training (e.g. Core Surgical Year 2 trainees vs. Foundation Year 1 doctors, OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32-0.77) and maturity (young vs. mature graduates, OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.81-3.63) were all found to be independent predictors of Part A success. In addition to ethnicity and stage of training, Part A performance (number of attempts and score) was also identified as an independent predictor for Part B. The odds of passing each part of the MRCS decreased by 14% (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.92) for Part A and 30% for Part B (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61-0.81) with each additional attempt that was made. CONCLUSIONS: Several independent predictors of MRCS success were identified, but only ethnicity and stage of training were found to be common predictors of both Part A and B.

Do surgeon interviewers have human factor-related issues during the long day UK National Trauma and Orthopaedic specialty recruitment process?

PURPOSE: The role that human factors (HF) play in contributing to medical error is increasingly being recognised by healthcare professionals. Surprisingly, much less is known about the possible effects of HF including boredom, fatigue and organisational influences, on performance outside of the clinical environment such as examining or assessing candidates in other high stakes situations. METHODS: The authors used a validated 38 response questionnaire based around the HF analysis and classification system (HFACS) to assess factors including stress and pressure, care and support and working within the rules for surgeon interviewers at the UK national trainee selection process in Trauma and Orthopaedic surgery. RESULTS: 121 completed questionnaires were analysed (86% response rate). No statistically significant differences were found between interviewer experience, grade or role at the interview and the mean scores obtained for all four factor items. Overall interviewers had a positive experience during national selection with mean factor scores ranging from 3.80 to 3.98 (out of a maximum satisfaction score of 5). CONCLUSIONS: Careful planning by organisations and recognising the importance of the human element are essential to ensure assessors are looked after properly during high stakes assessment processes. Our data suggests that a positive experience for examiners is likely to benefit candidate performance and contribute to a fair and reliable recruitment process. The relationship between examiner experience and candidate performance merits further investigation.

Surgical training during the COVID-19 pandemic: preparing for future uncertainty.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented changes in healthcare and surgical training, with elective operating reduced or stopped, conferences rearranged and examinations cancelled. Trainees and trainers have adapted, creating innovative and resourceful ways to continue learning, enabling progression through surgical training. With rising COVID-19 cases across the world and further waves of infections likely, we reflect on recent changes to surgical training and discuss how best to support the next generation of surgeons during this period of uncertainty.

Improved outcomes for patients undergoing colectomy for acute severe inflammatory colitis by adopting a multi-disciplinary care bundle.

PURPOSE: Severe inflammatory colitis as a consequence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may not be amenable to medical management, and surgery is often required. The optimal timing of surgery and perioperative therapeutic care requires a formal link between surgical department and gastroenterology which is often lacking. In this study, we assess the impact of adopting a multidisciplinary care bundle on complication rates of subtotal colectomy in IBD patients. METHODS: This is a single-centre retrospective observational study. Patients were identified through clinical discharge ICD10 codes. Clinical notes of patients who underwent subtotal colectomies from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2019 were analysed. Socio-demographics, diagnosis, and medical and surgical management data were collected. A multimodule bundle, including weekly MDT discussions, was started in our unit on 1 April 2014. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed on these data. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients were identified with 113 patients of these (38.2%) experiencing a complication post operation. The overall complication rate improved over time (p = 0.023). Those patients treated after the initiation of the MDT bundle had reduced complication rates (44.6% versus 33.7%, p = 0.045). On multivariate analysis, increasing age (1.023 OR; 95% CI 1.004, 1.041) and procedure performed before MDT bundle (3.1 OR; 95% CI 1.689, 5.723) were independent predictors for post-operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Closer links between gastroenterology and colorectal specialties have improved patient outcomes in our unit. Whilst IBD MDTs have previously been shown to improve outcomes for patients managed medically, we demonstrate that this interaction, implemented as a multidisciplinary care bundle, also improves surgical outcomes.

A modified Delphi process to establish research priorities in hernia surgery.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal wall hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide, yet despite this, there remains a lack of high-quality evidence to support best management. The aim of the study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine future research priorities in this field. METHODS: Stakeholders were invited by email, using British Hernia Society membership details or Twitter, to submit individual research questions via an online survey. In addition, questions obtained from a patient focus group (PFG) were collated to form Phase I. Two rounds of prioritization by stakeholders (phases II and III) were then completed to determine a final list of research questions. All questions were analyzed on an anonymized basis. RESULTS: A total of 266 questions, 19 from the PFG, were submitted by 113 stakeholders in Phase I. Of these, 64 questions were taken forward for prioritization in Phase II, which was completed by 107 stakeholders. Following Phase II analysis, 97 stakeholders prioritized 36 questions in Phase III. This resulted in a final list of 14 research questions, 3 of which were from the PFG. Stakeholders included patients and healthcare professionals (consultant surgeons, trainee surgeons and other multidisciplinary members) from over 27 countries during the 3 phases. CONCLUSION: The study has identified 14 key research priorities pertaining to abdominal wall hernia surgery. Uniquely, these priorities have been determined from participation by both healthcare professionals and patients. These priorities should now be addressed by well-designed, high-quality international collaborative research.

Prediction of success at UK Specialty Board Examinations using the mandatory postgraduate UK surgical examination.

Background: While performance in other mandatory examinations taken at the beginning of a doctor's career are predictive of final training outcomes, the influence early postgraduate surgical examinations might have on success at Specialty Board Exams in the UK is currently unknown. The aim was to investigate whether performance at the mandatory Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination, and other variables, are predictive of success at the Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons (FRCS) examination, thus potentially identifying those who may benefit from early academic intervention. Methods: Pearson correlation coefficients examined the linear relationship between both examinations and logistic regression analysis identified potential independent predictors of FRCS success. All UK medical graduates who attempted either section of FRCS (Sections 1 and 2) between 2012 and 2018 were included. Results: First attempt pass rates for Sections 1 and 2 FRCS were 87.4 per cent (n = 854) and 91.8 per cent (n = 797) respectively. In logistic regression analysis, sex (male: odds ratio (OR) 2.32, 95 per cent c.i 1.43 to 3.76), age (less than 29 years at graduation: OR 3.22, 1.88 to 5.51), Part B MRCS attempts (1 attempt: OR 1.77, 1.08 to 3.00), Part A score (OR 1.14, 1.09 to 1.89) and Part B score (OR 1.06, 1.03 to 1.09) were independent predictors of Section 1 FRCS success. Predictors of Section 2 FRCS success were age (less than 29 years at graduation: OR 3.55, 2.00 to 6.39), Part A score (OR 1.06, 1.02 to 1.11) and Section 1 FRCS score (OR 1.13, 1.07 to 1.18). Conclusion: Part A and B MRCS performance were independent predictors of FRCS success, providing further evidence to support the predictive validity of this mandatory postgraduate exam. However, future research must explore the reasons between the attainment gaps observed for different groups of doctors.

Antecedentes: Si bien el resultado obtenido en otros exámenes obligatorios efectuados al inicio de la formación médica son predictores de los resultados finales obtenidos al terminar la etapa de formación, se desconoce la influencia que podrían tener los resultados de primeros exámenes quirúrgicos de postgrado en el éxito de los exámenes de la Comisión de Especialidad del Reino Unido. El objetivo fue investigar si los resultados obtenidos en el examen obligatorio para ser miembro del Real Colegio de Cirujanos (membership of the Royal College of Surgeons, MRCS) y de otras variables son predictores de éxito en el examen de ingreso de licenciados universitarios del Real Colegio de Cirujanos (Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons, FRCS), de modo, que fuera posible identificar a aquellos colectivos de cirujanos que podrían beneficiarse de una acción formativa temprana. Métodos: Se utilizaron los coeficientes de correlación de Pearson para evaluar la relación lineal entre ambos exámenes, y un análisis de regresión logística para identificar posibles variables predictivas de éxito del examen del FRCS. Se incluyeron todos los graduados médicos del Reino Unido que intentaron cualquier sección del FRCS (secciones 1 y 2) entre los años 2012 y 2018. Resultados: Al primer intento, las tasas de superación de las secciones 1 y 2 del FRCS fueron del 87,4% (n = 854) y del 91,8% (n = 797), respectivamente. En el análisis de regresión logística, el sexo (masculino, razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 2,32, i.c. del 95% 1,43­3,76), la edad (menos de 29 años en el momento de la graduación, OR 3,22, 1,88­5,51), el número de intentos para superar la Parte B del MRCS (un intento, OR 1,77, 1,08­3,00) y la puntuación obtenida en las Partes A (OR 1,14, 1,09­1,89) y B del MRCS (OR 1,06, 1,03­1,09), fueron predictores independientes de éxito en la Sección 1 del FRCS. Los factores predictivos del éxito en la Sección 2 del FRCS fueron la edad (menos de 29 años a la graduación, 3,55, 1,88­5,51), la puntuación de la Parte A del MRCS (1,06, 1,02­1,11) y la puntuación de la Sección 1 del FRCS (1,13, 1,07­1,18). Conclusión: Los resultados de las partes A y B del MRCS fueron factores predictivos independientes del éxito del FRCS, lo que supone una evidencia adicional en favor de la validez predictiva de este examen obligatorio de postgrado. Sin embargo, la investigación futura debe explorar las razones entre las diferencias de logros observadas para diferentes grupos de médicos.

Factors predicting success in the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination: a summary for OMFS.

The Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS, parts A and B) is a mandatory examination for entry into higher surgical training in the UK. We investigated which factors predict success in both the written (Part A) and clinical (Part B) parts of the examination, and provide a summary for oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS). All UK graduates who attempted both parts between 2007 and 2016 were included. There was a positive correlation between the scores in parts A and B (r=0.41, p<0.01). For Part A, men (odds ratio (OR) 2.78; 95% CI 1.83 to 4.19), white candidates (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.52 to 1.89), and younger graduates (under 29years of age), were more likely to pass (OR 2.60; 95% CI 1.81 to 3.63). Foundation year one (FY1) doctors had higher pass rates than all other grades (e.g. core surgical trainee 2 compared with FY1 OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.77). The number of attempts at Part A and the final score, as well as ethnicity and stage of training, were independent predictors of success in Part B. Candidates who did well in Part A were more likely to do well in Part B. Several independent predictors of success were identified, but only the stage of training and ethnicity were common predictors in both parts. Higher scores obtained by younger candidates might be relevant to OMFS trainees who take Part A after studying medicine as a second degree.

Impact of performance in a mandatory postgraduate surgical examination on selection into specialty training.

BACKGROUND: The Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination is undertaken by large numbers of trainees in the UK and internationally as a mandatory step within surgical training. Unlike some high-stakes medical examinations, the MRCS is yet to be validated. A quantitative study was undertaken to assess its predictive validity by investigating the relationship between MRCS (Parts A and B) and national selection interview scores for general and vascular surgery in the UK. METHODS: Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the linear relationship between each assessment, and linear regression analyses were employed to identify potential independent predictors of the national selection score. All UK medical graduates who attempted the interview in 2011-2015 were included. RESULTS: Some 84·4 per cent of the candidates (1231 of 1458) were matched with MRCS data. There was a significant positive correlation between the first attempt score at Part B of the MRCS examination and the national selection score (r = 0·38, P < 0·001). In multivariable analysis, 17 per cent of variance in the national selection first attempt score was explained by the Part B MRCS score and number of attempts (change in R 2 value of 0·10 and 0·07 respectively; P < 0·001). Candidates who required more than two attempts at Part B were predicted to score 8·1 per cent less than equally matched candidates who passed at their first attempt. CONCLUSION: This study supports validity of the MRCS examination, and indicates its predictive value regarding entry into specialist training.