RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: UK medical graduates can apply for specialty training after completing a 2-year internship (foundation training). Postfoundation training application requirements vary depending on specialty but fundamentally require key skills such as teaching, research, and leadership. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether medical student demographics impact their self-reported familiarity with the Post-Foundation Training Pathways (PFTPs) and Post-Foundation Application Process (PFAP). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using a Bristol Online Survey. We invited all UK medical students to answer a range of questions about their demographics. Students were then asked to rank their familiarity with PFTPs and PFAP on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=least familiar and 5=most familiar). The responses were collected between March 2022 and April 2022 and exported for further analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted in Stata (version 17.1; StataCorp) using chi-square tests. RESULTS: A total of 850 students from 31 UK medical schools took part. There was a significant difference between gender and self-reported familiarity with PFTPs (P<.001) and PFAP (P<.001), with male students expressing higher familiarity. Similarly, there was a difference between ethnicity and self-reported familiarity with PFTPs (P=.02) and PFAP (P<.001), with White students more likely to express higher familiarity than their Black, Asian, or Mixed Ethnic counterparts. Lastly, there was an overall difference between medical background and age and self-reported familiarity with PFTPs and PFAP (all P<.001), with students from medical backgrounds and older students being more likely to express higher familiarity. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of gender, ethnicity, age, and medical background on students' self-reported familiarity with PFTPs and PFAP is significant. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of these factors on tested knowledge of PFTPs and PFAP and whether this impacts the success rate of postfoundation applications.
RESUMEN
Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a focus on non-face-to-face (NF2F) orthopedic clinics. In this study, our aim was to establish whether NF2F clinics are sustainable according to the "triple bottom line" framework by taking into account the impact on patients, the planet, and the financial cost. Methodology This retrospective cohort study was carried out at a large district general hospital with 261 patients identified as having undergone face-to-face (F2F) or NF2F orthopedic consultations (April 2020). These patients were contacted by telephone to establish their experience, mode of transport, and preference for future consultations. Data were also collected relating to environmental and financial costs to the patient and the trust. Results The final analysis included 180 (69%) patients: 42% had an F2F consultation and 58% NF2F consultation. There was no significant difference between each group in terms of convenience, ease of communication, subjective patient safety, or overall satisfaction rating (p > 0.05). Overall, 80% of NF2F patients would be happy with virtual consultations in the future. The mean journey distance was 18.6 miles leading to a reduction in total carbon emissions of 563.9 kgCO2e (66%), equating to 2,106 miles in a medium-sized car. The hospital visit carbon cost (heating, lighting, and waste generation) was reduced by 3,967 kgCO2e (58%). The financial cost (petrol and parking) was also reduced by an average of £8.96 per person. Conclusions NF2F consultations are aligned to the National Health Service's "Long Term Plan": (i) delivering high patient satisfaction with equivalent outcomes as F2F consultations; (ii) reducing carbon emissions from transportation and hospital running; and (iii) becoming cheaper.
