Quality assurance review of training in oral and maxillofacial surgery by the General Medical Council: areas of good practice, requirements, and recommendations

Abstract Aim The General Medical Council (GMC) National Training Survey invites all doctors in training and this study evaluates satisfaction in surgical training and variations with speciality, seniority, and training region. Method All survey results were obtained from the GMC website. Responses of trainees, ranging from foundation training to registrar, were collected and categorised by speciality, training stage and location. Results 9465 surgical trainees completed the study in 2019. The highest indicators were Educational Supervision (97.68), Clinical Supervision (87.42) and Clinical Supervision (out of hours) (87.28). The lowest were Workload (44.60), Rota Design (56.00) and Local Teaching (59.31). Highest and lowest ranking specialities were oral and maxillofacial surgery (84.25) and vascular surgery (73.95). Satisfaction varied significantly across training stages, with speciality trainees highest (82.58) overall and foundation year 1 lowest (70.03). London scored highest (77.95) and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales collectively scored 77.13. Within England, South England ranked highest in five specialities but only orthopaedics and neurosurgery showed significant national variations. Conclusions Our data show variations in training satisfaction across many training cohorts. Satisfaction increases with surgeon seniority. Trainers and educational boards should target interventions to improve the quality of training for all grades of trainees and ensure appropriate curriculum coverage and address specific concerns.

Download Full-text

The College

Psychiatric Bulletin ◽

10.1192/pb.29.4.154 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 154-156

Author(s):

Joe Bouch ◽

Robert Jackson

Keyword(s):

Professional Development ◽

Quality Assurance ◽

Personal Development ◽

Peer Group ◽

Continuing Professional Development ◽

General Medical Council ◽

Learning Objectives ◽

Medical Council ◽

Minimum Requirement ◽

Development Plans

In April 2001 the College introduced personal development plans (PDPs) as the mechanism for achieving continuing professional development (CPD) objectives. We moved from an individual, retrospective points counting exercise to a prospective peer-group based activity centring on individuals' learning objectives (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001). The current CPD policy is due for review in 2005. It is largely in line with General Medical Council guidance, Continuing Professional Development (April 2004) and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, CPD: The Ten Principles. A Framework for Continuing Professional Development (February 2002), and major revision will not be necessary. Two significant changes will be incorporated in the new policy. The first is an audit procedure whereby a random 5% of returns will be subject to further scrutiny. This is a process audit and necessary for the quality assurance of the system as a whole (Bouch & Jackson, 2004). The second will allow us to complete up to 10 h of our 50-h minimum requirement for attending meetings, by engaging in online CPD activities.

Download Full-text

Structured learning for clinical ethics in anaesthesia

Clinical Ethics ◽

10.1177/1477750916660831 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. 200-209

Author(s):

Sri Logarajah ◽

Sue Roff

Keyword(s):

Medical Practice ◽

Clinical Ethics ◽

Ethics Education ◽

Good Practice ◽

General Medical Council ◽

Structured Learning ◽

Medical Council ◽

Ethical Practice ◽

Good Medical Practice ◽

Education Decision

The ‘SLICE’ model for Structured Learning in Clinical Ethics provides a template to help medical professionals identify their own “moral compass” to provide guidance in complex ethical areas. The model has five domains – Conscience, Compliance, Concurrence, Conversation and Conversion. The use of ‘SLICE’ model as a tool for ethics education has been described in various undergraduate and postgraduate settings. These include teaching ethical aspects of transplantation; legislation for undergraduates and consent in paediatric anaesthesia. Its use as tool for teaching reflective ethical practice has been recently described demonstrating the potential of the SLICE model for supporting appraisal and professional development. In this article, we explore the suitability of the SLICE model to provide a general framework encompassing all the requirements for Ethical Clinical practice in anaesthesia. Good Medical Practice guidance produced by the General Medical Council and guidance provided jointly by the Royal College of Anaesthetists and Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland is used as the foundation for developing this framework. The Good Practice Guide for anaesthetic departments provides a solid ethical frame work for interpreting and applying Good Medical Practice guidance by the General Medical Council. Tools such as the SLICE model complement the guides produced by the professional organisations by providing a choice of different methods to facilitate education, decision making and reflective practice.

Download Full-text

Improving standards in clinical record-keeping

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment ◽

10.1192/apt.12.4.280 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 12 (4) ◽

pp. 280-286 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Ian Pullen ◽

John Loudon

Keyword(s):

Clinical Care ◽

Good Practice ◽

General Medical Council ◽

Medical Council ◽

Record Keeping ◽

Fit For Purpose ◽

Clinical Tools ◽

Reasons For Decisions ◽

Clinical Records

Clinical records are the most basic of clinical tools. Aggregated, they form a permanent account of individual considerations and the reasons for decisions. Essential for effective communication and good clinical care, they are often accorded low priority, are poorly maintained and not readily available. Independent inquiries, health ombudsmen's reports and the courts have repeatedly criticised the quality of records and the resulting failings of care. Most advice from professional bodies, indemnity organisations and the General Medical Council is extremely brief and confined to individual entries in the record. Patient safety and the demands of clinical governance make change essential. This article draws together standards and concludes with some good practice points for a fit-for-purpose, structured, multidisciplinary record to support good care and protect the interests of patients and clinicians. These principles should be equally applicable to electronic records.

Download Full-text

1492 The Age of Trainees When Joining the Specialist List – What Are the Differences Across Specialties?

British Journal of Surgery ◽

10.1093/bjs/znab259.905 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽

Author(s):

J Douglas ◽

P Magennis ◽

A Begley

Keyword(s):

Orthopaedic Surgery ◽

Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

General Medical Council ◽

Medical Council ◽

The Creation ◽

Age Of Entry ◽

Second Degree

Abstract Introduction Those wishing to pursue a career in surgery will be aware of stereotypes that exist within each specialty, including how long it takes to attain a certificate of completion of training (CCT). These perceptions are often historic, and whilst may be based on elements of truth, are rarely backed by robust data. Oral & maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) for example is plagued by the stigma of necessitating a second degree which gives the assumption the age of being appointed a consultant is somewhat above average. We aim to dispel (or prove, depending on one’s predisposition) such myths by analysing the age of surgeons when appointed to the General Medical Council’s specialist list. Method Information on the age of entry onto the surgical specialist lists between 1997 and 2018 was obtained from the General Medical Council (GMC). Data was suitably statistically analysed. Results 19,135 surgeons joined surgical specialist lists during the study period. General and trauma and orthopaedic surgery accounted for 60% of all surgeons (n = 11,444). The age on joining surgical specialist lists ranged from 27–83 years, with a mean of 41.4 years. Neurosurgeons most frequently joined the specialist list in the youngest age bracket. OMF surgeons, along with their cardiothoracic and vascular colleagues, are joint eldest by 1.3 years. Conclusions Since the creation of the specialist list, training has seen several upheavals. This data shows that despite each specialty’s specific requirements and individuals’ varying paths, there is little difference in the age when the consultant destination is reached.

Download Full-text

Review of General Dental Council and General Medical Council “fitness to practise” hearings related to maxillofacial surgery

British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.03.008 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 55 (6) ◽

pp. 580-583 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

R. Taylor ◽

M.H. Ali ◽

T.E. Howe ◽

I. Varley

Keyword(s):

Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

General Medical Council ◽

Medical Council

Download Full-text

End-of-life treatment and care: General Medical Council good practice guidance

The Psychiatrist ◽

10.1192/pb.bp.110.032276 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 35 (6) ◽

pp. 228-229 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Michael Tapley ◽

David Jolley

Keyword(s):

End Of Life ◽

End Of Life Care ◽

Ethical Issues ◽

Good Practice ◽

General Medical Council ◽

Medical Council ◽

Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽

Nutrition And Hydration ◽

Mental Capacity Act ◽

Legal And Ethical Issues

SummaryThe General Medical Council's guidelines on treatment and care towards the end of life, published in May 2010, contain important guidance for all doctors, including psychiatrists, who care for patients and their families towards the end of life. The document is written in the light of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and complements existing Good Medical Practice and confidentiality guidelines, also from the General Medical Council. Psychiatrists need to be aware of the communication, legal and ethical issues around end-of-life care, including advance directives and clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. This new guidance is compulsory reading for all psychiatrists.

Download Full-text

ICBSE: who are we and where are we going?

Bulletin of The Royal College of Surgeons of England ◽

10.1308/147363514x14042954768754 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 96 (8) ◽

pp. 288-289 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Peter A Brennan ◽

Lee Smith ◽

Kevin P Sherman

Keyword(s):

Quality Assurance ◽

Head And Neck ◽

College Presidents ◽

Surgical Training ◽

General Medical Council ◽

Neck Surgery ◽

Head And Neck Surgery ◽

The Other ◽

Medical Council ◽

The Uk

The Intercollegiate Committee for Basic Surgical Examinations (ICBSE) is responsible for the continued development, quality assurance and standards of the Intercollegiate MRCS and the Diploma in Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery (DO–HNS). As with the other two intercollegiate committees – namely the Joint Committee for Intercollegiate Examinations (JCIE) and the Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST) – the chairperson is appointed following an interview process by the four college presidents. The committees are accountable to all four royal colleges of surgeons in the UK and Ireland and the General Medical Council (GMC).

Download Full-text