Neurosurgery specialty training in the UK: What you need to know to be shortlisted for an interview

Neurosurgery is one of the most competitive specialties in the UK. In 2019, securing an ST1 post in neurosurgery corresponds to competition ration of 6.54 whereas a CST1 post 2.93. Further, at ST3 level, neurosurgery is the most competitive. In addition, the number of neurosurgical training posts are likely to be reduced in the coming years. A number of very specific shortlisting criteria, aiming to filter and select the best candidates for interview exist. In the context of the high competition ratios and the specific shortlisting criteria, developing an interest in the neurosciences early on will allow individuals more time to meet the necessary standards for neurosurgery. Here, we aim to outline the shortlisting criteria and offer advice on how to achieve maximum scores, increasing the likelihood to be shortlisted for an interview

Reproductive responses to varying food supply in a population of Darwin's finches: Clutch size, growth rates and hatching synchrony

I show how food shortage affects reproduction in a population of Darwin's Medium Ground Finches, Geospiza fortis . Despite the common occurrence of starvation and absence of nest predation, hatching is typically nighly synchronous and adaptive brood reductionappears to be absent. Variation in both growth rates and clutch size in association with the varying conditions is documented. This variation is interpreted as being a direct response to environmental conditions rather than adaptive phenotypic plasticity. I conclude that selection pressures to raise one or two chicks during times of food shortage, or to delay growth rates, are weak or absent.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47759/1/442_2004_Article_BF00378307.pd

CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) - Part 1: Multicenter Pilot Study

Background: CRANIAL (CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base) is a prospective, multicentre observational study seeking to determine: (1) the scope of skull base repair methods used; and (2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in endonasal transsphenoidal (TSA) expanded endonasal approaches (EEA) for skull base tumours. We sought to pilot the project - assessing the feasibility and acceptability by gathering preliminary data. / Methods: A prospective, observational cohort pilot study was carried out at twelve tertiary UK neurosurgical units. Feedback regarding project positives and challenges were qualitatively analysed. / Results: 187 cases were included, 159 TSA (85%) and 28 EEA (15%). The most common pathologies included: pituitary adenomas (n=141/187), craniopharyngiomas (n=13/187) and skull-base meningiomas (n=4/187). The most common skull base repair techniques used were tissue glues (n=132/187, most commonly Tisseel®), grafts (n=94/187, most commonly fat autograft or Spongostan™) and vascularised flaps (n=51/187, most commonly nasoseptal). These repairs were most frequently supported by nasal packs (n=125/187) and lumbar drains (n=22/187). Biochemically-confirmed CSF rhinorrhoea occurred in 6/159 (3.8%) TSA and 2/28 (7.1%) EEA. Four TSA (3%) and two EEA (7%) cases required operative management for CSF rhinorrhoea (CSF diversion or direct repair). Qualitative feedback was largely positive (themes included: user-friendly and efficient data collection, strong support from senior team members) demonstrating acceptability. / Conclusions: Our pilot experience highlights the acceptability and feasibility of CRANIAL. There is a precedent for multicentre dissemination of this project, in order to establish a benchmark of contemporary skull base neurosurgery practice, particularly with respect to EEA cases

CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) - Part 1:Multicenter Pilot Study

Background CRANIAL (CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base) is a prospective, multicentre observational study seeking to determine: (1) the scope of skull base repair methods used; and (2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in endonasal transsphenoidal (TSA) expanded endonasal approaches (EEA) for skull base tumours. We sought to pilot the project - assessing the feasibility and acceptability by gathering preliminary data. Methods A prospective, observational cohort pilot study was carried out at twelve tertiary UK neurosurgical units. Feedback regarding project positives and challenges were qualitatively analysed. Results 187 cases were included, 159 TSA (85%) and 28 EEA (15%). The most common pathologies included: pituitary adenomas (n=141/187), craniopharyngiomas (n=13/187) and skull-base meningiomas (n=4/187). The most common skull base repair techniques used were tissue glues (n=132/187, most commonly Tisseel®), grafts (n=94/187, most commonly fat autograft or Spongostan™) and vascularised flaps (n=51/187, most commonly nasoseptal). These repairs were most frequently supported by nasal packs (n=125/187) and lumbar drains (n=22/187). Biochemically-confirmed CSF rhinorrhoea occurred in 6/159 (3.8%) TSA and 2/28 (7.1%) EEA. Four TSA (3%) and two EEA (7%) cases required operative management for CSF rhinorrhoea (CSF diversion or direct repair). Qualitative feedback was largely positive (themes included: user-friendly and efficient data collection, strong support from senior team members) demonstrating acceptability. Conclusions Our pilot experience highlights the acceptability and feasibility of CRANIAL. There is a precedent for multicentre dissemination of this project, in order to establish a benchmark of contemporary skull base neurosurgery practice, particularly with respect to EEA cases. Keywords Cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoeaCSFCerebrospinal fluid leakskull base surgeryendoscopic endonasalEE

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

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