Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

BACKGROUND: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). METHOD: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. RESULTS: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. DISCUSSION: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training

Total elbow replacement in England: analysis of National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics data

Aim:To describe total elbow replacement (TER) procedures in England, including incidence, patient profiles, implant types, outcomes, and TER service provider characteristics.Methods:Analysis of primary TERs on the National Joint Registry (NJR) from April 2012 to December 2022 with mortality data from the Civil Registration of Deaths dataset. Linkage with Hospital Episode Statistics-Admitted Patient Care (HES-APC) data provided additional patient data not collected by the NJR. Incidence rates were calculated using population estimates from the Office for National Statistics. The annual number of procedures performed by surgeons and hospitals were analysed on a national and regional basis.Results:3,891 primary TERs were included. The annual incidence of TER was 0.72-0.82 per 100,000 persons before 2020 and declined to 0.4 due to a decrease in elective TERs because of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a slight recovery in 2022. Older age groups, white ethnic groups and females were more likely to undergo TER surgery. Elective patients had to wait for a median of 89-122 days in years before 2020, which increased to 183 days in 2020. The number of TERs performed by surgeons per annum remained unchanged, with a median of two. The median annual number of TERs per region is three-to-six times higher than the median annual case load of the highest volume hospital in a region. Patients in the lowest socioeconomic group had a higher rate of serious adverse events and mortality (11%) when undergoing surgery for acute trauma.Conclusions:TER is more common in older age groups, females, and white ethnic groups in England. COVID-19 impacted elective TER rates and waiting times, and TER services have not recovered yet. The GIRFT recommendation of centralising services to one hub per region could result in up to a six-fold increase in the number of TERs in some hub hospitals.<br/

Total elbow replacement in England: analysis of National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics data

Aim:To describe total elbow replacement (TER) procedures in England, including incidence, patient profiles, implant types, outcomes, and TER service provider characteristics.Methods:Analysis of primary TERs on the National Joint Registry (NJR) from April 2012 to December 2022 with mortality data from the Civil Registration of Deaths dataset. Linkage with Hospital Episode Statistics-Admitted Patient Care (HES-APC) data provided additional patient data not collected by the NJR. Incidence rates were calculated using population estimates from the Office for National Statistics. The annual number of procedures performed by surgeons and hospitals were analysed on a national and regional basis.Results:3,891 primary TERs were included. The annual incidence of TER was 0.72-0.82 per 100,000 persons before 2020 and declined to 0.4 due to a decrease in elective TERs because of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a slight recovery in 2022. Older age groups, white ethnic groups and females were more likely to undergo TER surgery. Elective patients had to wait for a median of 89-122 days in years before 2020, which increased to 183 days in 2020. The number of TERs performed by surgeons per annum remained unchanged, with a median of two. The median annual number of TERs per region is three-to-six times higher than the median annual case load of the highest volume hospital in a region. Patients in the lowest socioeconomic group had a higher rate of serious adverse events and mortality (11%) when undergoing surgery for acute trauma.Conclusions:TER is more common in older age groups, females, and white ethnic groups in England. COVID-19 impacted elective TER rates and waiting times, and TER services have not recovered yet. The GIRFT recommendation of centralising services to one hub per region could result in up to a six-fold increase in the number of TERs in some hub hospitals.<br/

Prognostic factors associated with failure of total elbow replacement:a protocol for a systematic review

Introduction Total elbow replacement (TER) has higher failure rates requiring revision surgery compared with the replacement of other joints. Understanding the factors associated with failure is essential for informed decision-making between patients and clinicians, and for reducing the failure rate. This review aims to identify, describe and appraise the literature examining prognostic factors for failure of TER. Methods and analysis This systematic review will be conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Electronic literature searches will be conducted using Medline, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane. The search strategy will be broad, including a combination of subject headings (MESH) and free text search. This search will be supplemented with a screening of reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews. Two independent reviewers will screen all search results in two stages (title and abstract, and full text) based on the Population, Index prognostic factor, Comparator prognostic factor, Outcome, Time and Setting criteria. The types of evidence included will be randomised trials, non-randomised trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, registry studies and case-control studies. If the literature lacks enough studies, then case series with 50 or more TERs will be considered for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment for included studies will be performed by two independent reviewers using the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies for Prognostic Factors and Quality In Prognostic Studies tools. Meta-analyses of prognostic estimates for each factor will be undertaken for studies that are deemed to be sufficiently robust and comparable. Several challenges are likely to arise due to heterogeneity between studies, therefore, subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to account for the differences between studies. Heterogeneity will be assessed using Q and I 2 statistics. If I 2 &gt;40% then pooled estimates will not be reported. When quantitative synthesis is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be undertaken. The quality of the evidence for each prognostic factor will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023384756.</p

Prognostic factors associated with failure of total elbow arthroplasty

Aims: The aims of this study were to identify and evaluate the current literature examining the prognostic factors which are associated with failure of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Methods: Electronic literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane. All studies reporting prognostic estimates for factors associated with the revision of a primary TEA were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Due to low quality of the evidence and the heterogeneous nature of the studies, a narrative synthesis was used. Results: A total of 19 studies met the inclusion criteria, investigating 28 possible prognostic factors. Most QUIPS domains (84%) were rated as moderate to high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all prognostic factors. In low-quality evidence, prognostic factors with consistent associations with failure of TEA in more than one study were: the sequelae of trauma leading to TEA, either independently or combined with acute trauma, and male sex. Several other studies investigating sex reported no association. The evidence for other factors was of very low quality and mostly involved exploratory studies. Conclusion: The current evidence investigating the prognostic factors associated with failure of TEA is of low or very low quality, and studies generally have a moderate to high risk of bias. Prognostic factors are subject to uncertainty, should be interpreted with caution, and are of little clinical value. Higher-quality evidence is required to determine robust prognostic factors for failure of TEA

The urologist's role in multidisciplinary management of placenta percreta

To evaluate urological interventions in patients with placental adhesive disorders in our collaborative experience at a tertiary referral centre.status: publishe

Estimated donor glomerular filtration rate is the most important donor characteristic predicting graft function in recipients of kidneys from live donors

We hypothesized that predictors of outcome in live donor transplants were likely to differ significantly from deceased donor transplants, in which cold ischaemia time, cause of donor death and other donor factors are the most important predictors. The primary aim was to explore the independent predictors of graft function in recipients of live donor kidneys (LDK). Our secondary aim was to determine which donor characteristics are the most useful predictors. A retrospective analysis was undertaken of all patients receiving live donor (n = 206) renal transplants at our institution between 31 May 1994 and 15 October 2002. Twelve patients were excluded from the analysis. Follow-up was completed on all patients until graft loss, death or 22 November 2003. We explored predictors of Nankivell glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at 6 months by multivariate linear regression. In the 194 patients studied, the mean recipient 6-month Nankivell GFR was 59 +/- 15 ml/min/1.73 m(2). Independent predictors of recipient GFR in at 6 months were donor Cockcroft-Gault GFR (CrCl; beta 0.16; CI 0.13 to 0.29; P < 0.0001), steroid resistant rejection (beta-6.07; CI -12.05 to -0.09; P = 0.006) and delayed graft function (DGF) (beta-10.0; CI -19.52 to -0.49; P = 0.039). Renal function in an LDK transplant recipients is predicted by donor GFR, episodes of steroid resistant rejection and DGF. Importantly, donor Cockcroft-Gault GFR is the most important characteristic for predicting the recipient renal function

NeoAdjuvant pembrolizumab and STEreotactic radiotherapy prior to nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma (NAPSTER): A phase II randomised clinical trial

Background: Surgery remains the standard of care for localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Nevertheless, nearly 50% of patients with high-risk disease experience relapse after surgery, with distant sites being common. Considering improved outcomes in terms of disease-free survival with adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab, we hypothesise that neoadjuvant SABR with or without the addition of pembrolizumab before nephrectomy will lead to improved disease outcomes by evoking better immune response in the presence of an extensive reserve of tumor-associated antigens. Methods and analysis: This prospective, open-label, phase II, randomised, non-comparative, clinical trial will investigate the use of neoadjuvant stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) with or without pembrolizumab prior to nephrectomy. The trial will be conducted at two centres in Australia that are well established for delivering SABR to primary RCC patients. Twenty-six patients with biopsy-proven clear cell RCC will be recruited over two years. Patients will be randomised to either SABR or SABR/pembrolizumab. Patients in both arms will undergo surgery at 9 weeks after completion of experimental treatment. The primary objectives are to describe major pathological response and changes in tumour-responsive T-cells from baseline pre-treatment biopsy in each arm. Patients will be followed for sixty days post-surgery. Outcomes and significance: We hypothesize that SABR alone or SABR plus pembrolizumab will induce significant tumor-specific immune response and major pathological response. In that case, either one or both arms could justifiably be used as a neoadjuvant treatment approach in future randomized trials in the high-risk patient population