UK OMFS consultants and trainees strongly support the recommendations of the 2008 Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB) Review of Training in OMFS. The time for delivering them is now.

When the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board's (PMETB) Review of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) Training was published in 2008 it contained five recommendations about OMFS training. As yet, none of these recommendations has been delivered. An online survey was designed to assess awareness of the PMETB review and the current views of OMFS trainees and consultants about its recommendations. Replies were invited using email and social media (WhatsApp, Twitter, and Facebook). As a result of using social media no denominator for the response rate was possible. A total of 304 responses were received, eight of which were anonymous. There was strong support for all the OMFS-specific recommendations: 1: the OMFS specialty should remain a dual medical and dental degree specialty (255, 84%); 2: OMFS training should be shortened (283, 93%); 3: OMFS training should start at the beginning of the second degree (203, 67%); 4: there should be a single medical regulator (General Medical Council) for OMFS (258, 85%); and 6: the need for a second Foundation Year should be removed (260, 86%). Other suggestions about improving OMFS training were also made by participants in the survey. There remains strong support within the specialty for the recommendations of the review. This support is present across consultants, specialty trainees, and those aiming for OMFS specialty training. Some of the original legislative obstructions to delivery of the recommendations have been removed by Brexit creating a unique opportunity for them to be delivered.

Barriers to Post-CCST training in orthodontics: A survey of trainee perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: In order to be eligible for consultant appointments within the NHS, orthodontists can undertake higher specialty training after their Certificate of Completion of Specialist Training (CCST). These training posts are known as Post-CCST positions and orthodontists must be eligible for inclusion on the General Dental Council's (GDC) specialist list for orthodontics before applying. There has been a decline in the number of applicants and the number of filled Post-CCST positions in recent years, leading to concerns over a potential shortage of appropriately trained consultant orthodontists to provide a secondary care service in the near future. This survey was undertaken to identify barriers to applying for Post-CCST training and assess potential options for increasing trainee numbers. METHODS: An online survey was distributed, by email, to current orthodontic trainees and those that had recently completed training in the last six months via the British Orthodontic Society Training Grades Group. Reminder emails were sent at two and four weeks. A total of 201 trainees were invited to complete the survey. RESULTS: Eighty-nine trainees completed the survey (response rate of 44.3%). Regarding applying to Post-CCST training, 32.6% and 47.7% of respondents, respectively, either wanted to or were considering applying for Post-CCST training. The South East was the most preferred region for Post-CCST training (38.0%). Reasons for not wishing to complete Post-CCST training included salary (71.9%), lack of consultant posts in desired regions (64.1%) and inability/unwillingness to relocate (63.5%). Part-time training (91.0%) and a higher salary during training (86.0%) were most likely to incentivise application for Post-CCST training. CONCLUSION: Financial, family and geographical concerns appear to be the main reasons why trainees might not consider Post-CCST training. Part-time and run-through training options may encourage trainees to apply for Post-CCST training.

Determining the needs of ophthalmic trainees entering into specialist training and how they can be met.

Problem: Starting ophthalmic specialty training can be daunting as new basic clinical examination and surgical skills must be acquired before meaningful assessment of patients can begin. No formal clinical induction currently exists with the aim to teach clinical and practical skills to new starters. Aim and objectives: To determine the experience and needs of ophthalmic trainees entering into specialist training. Using this information we developed and implemented a clinical skills training programme for Ophthalmology ST1s. Intervention: Using SMART objectives, PDSA cycles and Chartered Institute of Personnel Development guidance we implemented a clinical skills induction week. Pre-course skills evaluation took place in the form of a questionnaire in order to tailor the course content to the skill level of the group. Course material was made and simulation techniques devised for teaching practical skills. Qualitative data was collected via a pre- and post-course questionnaire. Outcome: All 9 participants rated the course as "extremely useful" it increased their confidence in terms of commencing clinical ophthalmology. 100% of participants felt that this course should be delivered to new ST1s. All participants reported improved confidence in managing ophthalmic emergencies and their clinical skills technique. Lessons learned: A sustainable induction programme was implemented tailored to the prior experience and skills of ST1 trainees. All participants felt it improved their confidence and clinical skills prior to commencing clinical activities. Basic clinical skills can be taught in a cost effective manner early on in postgraduate training.

"Run-through" training at specialist training year 1 and uncoupled core surgical training for oral and maxillofacial surgery in the United Kingdom: a snapshot survey.

Training in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) in the UK has undergone considerable changes during the last 10years, and "core" surgical training has replaced "basic" surgical training. In 2014 a pilot "run-through" training programme from specialist training year one (ST1)-ST7 was introduced to facilitate early entry into the speciality. Run-through training guarantees that a trainee, after a single competitive selection process and satisfactory progress, will be given training that covers the entire curriculum of the speciality, whereas uncoupled training requires a second stage of competitive recruitment after the first one (for OMFS only) or two years of "core" training to progress to higher specialty training. The first two years of run-through training (ST1-ST2) are the same as for core surgical training. Dual-qualified maxillofacial aspirants and those in their second degree course are curious to know whether they should go for the uncoupled core surgical training or the run-through programme in OMFS. The General Medical Council (GMC) has now agreed that run-through training can be rolled out nationally in OMFS. To assess the two pathways we used an online questionnaire to gain feedback about the experience from all OMFS ST3 and run-through trainees (ST3/ST4) in 2016-2017. We identified and contacted 21 trainees, and 17 responded, including seven run-through trainees. Eleven, including five of the run-through trainees, recommended the run-through training programme in OMFS. Six of the seven run-through trainees had studied dentistry first. The overall mean quality of training was rated as 5.5 on a scale 0-10 by the 17 respondents. This survey gives valuable feedback from the current higher surgical trainees in OMFS, which will be useful to the GMC, Health Education England, OMFS Specialist Advisory Committee, and those seeking to enter higher surgical training in OMFS.