Women in trauma and orthopaedics: are we losing them at the first hurdle?

INTRODUCTION: Diversity in the healthcare workforce is associated with improved performance and patient-reported outcomes. Gender disparity in Trauma and Orthopaedics (T&O) is well recognised. The aim of this study was to compare factors that influence career choice in T&O between male and female final-year students. Furthermore, the trend of representation of women in T&O over the last decade was also compared with other surgical specialities. METHODS: An online survey of final-year students who attended nationally advertised T&O courses over a 2-year period was conducted. Data from NHS digital was obtained to assess gender diversity in T&O compared with other surgical specialities. RESULTS: A total of 414 students from 13 UK medical schools completed the questionnaire. Compared with male students (34.2%), a significantly higher proportion of women (65.8%) decided against a career in T&O, p<0.001. Factors that dissuaded a significantly higher percentage of women included gender bias, technical aspects of surgery, unsociable hours, on-call commitments, inadequate undergraduate training and interest in another specialty (p<0.05). Motivating factors for choosing a career in T&O were similar between both sexes. T&O was the surgical specialty with the lowest proportion of women at both consultant and trainee level over the last decade. CONCLUSION: T&O remains an unpopular career choice among women. To enhance recruitment of women in T&O, future strategies should be directed toward medical students. Universities, orthopaedic departments and societies must work collaboratively to embed culture change, improve the delivery of the undergraduate curriculum, and facilitate students' exposure to operating theatres and female role models.

Informed consent in orthopaedics: do patients in the United Kingdom understand the written information we provide?

Aims: Informed patient consent is a legal prerequisite endorsed by multiple regulatory institutions including the Royal College of Surgeons and the General Medical Council. It is also recommended that the provision of written information is available and may take the form of a Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) with multiple PILs available from leading orthopaedic institutions. PILs may empower the patient, improve compliance, and improve the patient experience. The national reading age in the United Kingdom is less than 12 years and therefore PILs should be written at a readability level not exceeding 12 years old. We aim to assess the readability of PILs currently provided by United Kingdom orthopaedic institutions. Patients and Methods: The readability of PILs on 58 common conditions provided by seven leading orthopaedic associations in January 2017, including the British Orthopaedic Association, British Hip Society, and the British Association of Spinal Surgeons, was assessed. All text in each PIL was analyzed using readability scores including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) test. Results: The mean FKGL was 10.4 (6.7 to 17.0), indicating a mean reading age of 15 years. The mean SMOG score was 12.8 (9.7 to 17.9) indicating a mean reading age of 17 years. Conclusion: Orthopaedic-related PILs do not comply with the recommended reading age, with some requiring graduate-level reading ability. Patients do not have access to appropriate orthopaedic-related PILs. Current publicly available PILs require further review to promote patient education and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1253-9.