The SCARE 2023 guideline: updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines

BACKGROUND: The Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines were first published in 2016 as a tool for surgeons to document and report their surgical cases in a standardised and comprehensive manner. However, with advances in technology and changes in the healthcare landscape, it is important to revise and update these guidelines to ensure they remain relevant and valuable for surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced through a Delphi consensus exercise. Members of the SCARE 2020 guidelines Delphi group, editorial board members, and peer reviewers were invited to participate. Potential contributors were contacted by e-mail. An online survey was completed to indicate their agreement with the proposed changes to the guideline items. RESULTS: A total of 54 participants were invited to participate and 44 (81.5%) completed the survey. There was a high degree of agreement among reviewers, with 36 items (83.7%) meeting the threshold for inclusion. CONCLUSION: Through a completed Delphi consensus exercise we present the SCARE 2023 guidelines. This will provide surgeons with a comprehensive and up-to-date tool for documenting and reporting their surgical cases while highlighting the importance of patient-centred care

The SCARE 2020 guideline: Updating consensus surgical case report (SCARE) guidelines

Introduction: The SCARE Guidelines were first published in 2016 and were last updated in 2018. They provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports and are used and endorsed by authors, journal editors and reviewers, in order to increase robustness and transparency in reporting surgical cases. They must be kept up to date in order to drive forwards reporting quality. As such, we have updated these guidelines via a DELPHI consensus exercise.Methods: The updated guidelines were produced via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Members were invited from the previous DELPHI group, as well as editorial board members and peer reviewers of the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group completed an online survey to indicate their agreement with proposed changes to the checklist items.Results: A total of 54 surgical experts agreed to participate and 53 (98%) completed the survey. The responses and suggested modifications were incorporated into the new 2020 guideline. There was a high degree of agreement amongst the SCARE Group, with all modified SCARE items receiving over 70% scores 7-9.Conclusion: A DELPHI consensus exercise was completed and an updated and improved SCARE Checklist is now presented

The PROCESS 2020 guideline: Updating consensus preferred reporting Of case series in surgery (PROCESS) guidelines

Introduction: The PROCESS Guidelines were first published in 2016 and were last updated in 2018. They provide a structure for reporting surgical case series in order to increase reporting robustness and transparency, and are used and endorsed by authors, journal editors and reviewers alike. In order to drive forwards reporting quality, they must be kept up to date. As such, we have updated these guidelines via a DELPHI consensus exercise.Methods: The updated guidelines were produced via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Members from the previous DELPHI group were again invited, alongside editorial board members and peer reviewers of the International Journal of Surgery and the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. An online survey was completed by this expert group to indicate their agreement with proposed changes to the checklist items.Results: A total of 53 surgical experts agreed to participate and 49 (92%) completed the survey. The responses and suggested modifications were incorporated into the previous 2018 guidelines. There was a high degree of agreement amongst the PROCESS Group, with all but one of the PROCESS items receiving over 70% of scores ranging 7-9.Conclusion: A DELPHI consensus exercise was completed and an updated and improved PROCESS Checklist is now presented

Medical leadership training varies substantially between UK medical schools: report of the leadership in undergraduate medical education national survey (LUMENS)

Background: Doctors are increasingly expected to demonstrate medical leadership and management (MLM) skills. The Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management (FMLM) has published an indicative undergraduate curriculum to guide the development of MLM content at UK medical schools. Method: Students from 30 medical schools were surveyed to determine their understanding of MLM teaching at their school. Timetables for 21 schools were searched for MLM-related keywords. Student-reported teaching and timetabled teaching were coded according to predefined themes. Aggregated demographic and postgraduate performance data were obtained through collaboration with the Medical Student Investigators Collaborative (msico.org). Results: Whilst 88% of medical students see MLM teaching as relevant, only 18% believe it is well integrated into their curriculum. MLM content represented ∼2% of timetabled teaching in each 5-year undergraduate medical course. Most of this teaching was dedicated to teamwork, performance/reflection and communication skills. There was minimal association between how much of a topic students believed they were taught, and how much they were actually taught. We found no association between the volume of MLM teaching and performance in postgraduate examinations, trainee career destinations or fitness to practice referrals. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate limited and variable teaching of MLM content. Delivery was independent of broader teaching and assessment factors

Students' participation in collaborative research should be recognised

Letter to the editor