Upper gastrointestinal training in the UK and Ireland: a Roux Group Study.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical training programmes in the United Kingdom and Ireland (UK&I) are in a state of flux. This study aims to report the contemporary opinions of trainee and consultant surgeons on the current upper gastrointestinal (UGI) training model in the UK&I. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and distributed via national UGI societies. Questions pertained to demographics, current training evaluation, perceived requirements and availability. RESULTS: A total of 241 responses were received with representation from all UK&I postgraduate training regions. The biggest discrepancies between rotation demand and national availability related to advanced/therapeutic endoscopy and robotic surgery, with 91.7% of respondents stating they would welcome greater geographical flexibility in training. The median suggested academic targets were 3-5 publications (trainee vs consultant <3 vs 3-5, p<0.001); <3 presentations (<3 vs 3-5, p=0.002); and 3-5 audits/quality improvement projects (<3 vs 3-5, p<0.001). Current operative requirements were considered achievable (87.6%) but inadequate for day one consultant practice (74.7%). Reassuringly, 76.3% deemed there was role for on-the-job operative training following consultant appointment. Proficiency in diagnostic endoscopy was considered a minimum requirement for Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) yet the majority regarded therapeutic endoscopy competency as non-essential. The median numbers of index UGI operations suggested were comparable with the current curriculum requirements. Post-CCT fellowships were not considered necessary; however, the majority (73.6%) recognised their advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Current CCT requirements are largely consistent with the opinions of the UGI community. Areas for improvement include flexibility in geographical working and increasing national provisions for high-quality endoscopy training.

Prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: endless debate.

INTRODUCTION The development of pancreatic infection is associated with the development of a deteriorating disease with subsequent high morbidity and mortality. There is agreement that in mild pancreatitis there is no need to use antibiotics; in severe pancreatitis it would appear to be a logical choice to use antibiotics to prevent secondary pancreatic infection and decrease associated mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS A non-systematic review of current evidence, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials was conducted to assess the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis and whether it might improve morbidity and mortality in pancreatitis. RESULTS Mixed evidence was found to support and refute the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis. Most studies have failed to demonstrate much benefit from its routine use. Data from our unit suggested little benefit of their routine use, and showed that the mortality of those treated with antibiotics was significantly higher compared with those not treated with antibiotics (9% vs 0%, respectively, P = 0.043). In addition, the antibiotic group had significantly higher morbidity (36% vs 5%, respectively, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Antibiotics should be used in patients who develop sepsis, infected necrosis-related systemic inflammatory response syndrome, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome or pancreatic and extra-pancreatic infection. Despite the many other factors that should be considered, prompt antibiotic therapy is recommended once inflammatory markers are raised, to prevent secondary pancreatic infection. Unfortunately, there remain many unanswered questions regarding the indications for antibiotic administration and the patients who benefit from antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis.