Motivators and deterrents for early career female doctors applying to surgical training programmes in the UK National Health Service: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a mixed-methods study identifying motivators and deterrents to female doctors interested in core surgical training (CST). To provide tangible implementations based on the findings. DESIGN: This study used quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (semistructured interviews (SSIs)) analyses. Participants completed online questionnaires on Qualtrics and SSIs were conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams. Questions were derived from previous studies and a novel term, the gender impact rating (GIR), was coined to assess the impact of gender on opportunities available during CST application. SETTING: Participants were working in the UK National Health Service and data collected from December 2020 to January 2021. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 100 female surgical trainees in the UK ranging from Foundation Year 2 to Core Training Year 2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants ranked factors by their influence on their CST application. Of the 100 trainees, 21 were randomly selected for an SSI to explore their questionnaire responses. Statistical analyses were performed using MATLAB and SPSS, alongside a thematic analysis of the interviews. RESULTS: A total of 44 out of 100 questionnaire respondents ranked early exposure to surgery as the most influential motivator, while 43% selected work-life balance as the greatest deterrent and 33% suggested mentoring schemes to encourage women to apply to CST. The median GIR was 3 out of 5, indicating a moderate perceived impact of gender on opportunities available during CST application. Qualitative analysis found four overarching themes: institutional factors (including mentorship schemes), organisational culture (including active engagement), social factors and personal factors. CONCLUSION: Thematic analysis suggested that seniors involving women in theatre and a supportive work environment would encourage entry of more female surgeons. Therefore, the proposed implementations are the active engagement of women in theatre and destigmatising less than full-time training. Further research into ethnicity and personality on motivations to enter surgery is advised.

A Cost Utility Analysis of Minimally Invasive Surgery with Thrombolysis Compared to Standard Medical Treatment in Spontaneous Intracerebral Haemorrhagic Stroke.

OBJECTIVES: Standard medical management of spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) and surgical hematoma evacuation starkly differ, and whilst landmark randomised control trials report no clinical benefit of early surgical evacuation compared with medical treatment in supratentorial ICH, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with thrombolysis has been neglected within these studies. However, recent technological advancements in MIS have renewed interest in the surgical treatment of ICH. Several economic evaluations have focused on the benefits of MIS in ischaemic stroke management, but no economic evaluations have yet been performed comparing MIS to standard medical treatment for ICH. MATERIALS AND METHOD: All costs were sourced from the UK in GBP. Where possible, the 2019/2020 NHS reference costs were used. The MISTIE III study was used to analyse the outcomes of patients undergoing either MIS or standard medical treatment in this economic evaluation. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for MIS was £485,240.26 for every quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Although MIS resulted in a higher QALY compared to medical treatment, the gain was insignificant at 0.011 QALY. Four sensitivity analyses based on combinations of alternative EQ-5D values and categorisation of MIS outcomes, alongside alterations to the cost of significant adverse events, were performed to check the robustness of the ICER calculation. The most realistic sensitivity analysis showed a potential increase in cost effectiveness when clot size is reduced to <15ml, with the ICER falling to £74,335.57. DISCUSSION: From the perspective of the NHS, MIS with thrombolysis is not cost-effective compared to optimal medical treatment. ICER shows that intention-to-treat MIS would require a cost of £485,240.26 to gain one extra QALY, which is significantly above the NHS threshold of £30,000. Further UK studies with ICH survivor utilities, more replicable surgical technique, and the reporting of clot size reduction are indicated as the present sensitivity analysis suggests that MIS is promising. Greater detail about outcomes and complications would ensure improved cost-benefit analyses and support valid and efficient allocation of resources by the NHS.