J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021 Nov 29:S1748-6815(21)00634-3. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.11.082. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine the proportion of UK aesthetic surgery training taking place in the independent sector, how this experience is gained, and factors associated with trainee participation. We also aimed to draw comparisons between training in the National Health Services (NHS) and independent sectors.
METHODS: Plastic Surgery Trainees were asked to complete a 10-item questionnaire, in addition to their usual operative entry on eLogbook, when logging a procedure with an aesthetic operative code, prospectively over a 6-month period. Anonymised data was exported and analysed using SPSS.
RESULTS: A total of 285 questionnaires were completed; all UK training regions were represented. The majority were for NHS procedures (88%), of which 56% were for breast surgery, 23% facial surgery, 19% body contouring, and 2% non-surgical. Trainees were significantly more likely to participate in procedures when they were performed in the NHS (odds ratio, OR, 9.7, p < 0.01) or when they were body contouring surgery (OR 1.5, p < 0.01). Trainees were more likely to participate in perioperative care in an NHS setting (p < 0.01). When trainees attend the independent sector, it was usually within contracted training hours (57%) with their consultant trainer with whom they are working in the NHS (63%).
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of aesthetic surgery training occurs in the NHS but this is not representative of UK aesthetic practice. There is a need to engage the independent sector to provide formal aesthetic surgery training as part of the plastic surgery training programme, including procedural participation and perioperative care. Additional aesthetic fellowships and mechanisms for mentorship by established consultants should be developed.
PMID:34955399 | DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.11.082
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου