Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a focus on non-face-to-face (NF2F) orthopedic clinics. In this study, our aim was to establish whether NF2F clinics are sustainable according to the “triple bottom line” framework by taking into account the impact on patients, the planet, and the financial cost. Methodology This retrospective cohort study was carried out at a large district general hospital with 261 patients identified as having undergone face-to-face (F2F) or NF2F orthopedic consultations (April 2020). These patients were contacted by telephone to establish their experience, mode of transport, and preference for future consultations. Data were also collected relating to environmental and financial costs to the patient and the trust. Results The final analysis included 180 (69%) patients: 42% had an F2F consultation and 58% NF2F consultation. There was no significant difference between each group in terms of convenience, ease of communication, subjective patient safety, or overall satisfaction rating (p > 0.05). Overall, 80% of NF2F patients would be happy with virtual consultations in the future. The mean journey distance was 18.6 miles leading to a reduction in total carbon emissions of 563.9 kgCO 2 e (66%), equating to 2,106 miles in a medium-sized car. The hospital visit carbon cost (heating, lighting, and waste generation) was reduced by 3,967 kgCO 2 e (58%). The financial cost (petrol and parking) was also reduced by an average of £8.96 per person. Conclusions NF2F consultations are aligned to the National Health Service’s “Long Term Plan”: (i) delivering high patient satisfaction with equivalent outcomes as F2F consultations; (ii) reducing carbon emissions from transportation and hospital running; and (iii) becoming cheaper.

No abstract

Aim COVID-19 has dramatically altered how surgical teaching is provided; face-to-face teaching has been superseded by online teaching to limit viral transmission. Online teaching can lack engagement and therefore audience learning. The aim of this study was to determine which online teaching strategies best engage medical students. Method The ‘6th International Surgical Finals revision course’ took place on Zoom in December 2020 with 11 lectures provided by 11 different junior doctors using different lecturing techniques. It was attended by 208 final year medical students from across Europe. Post-course questionnaires were completed by 204 attendees (98.1%). All lectures were recorded and reviewed to identify engagement strategies. Results 95% of attendees preferred the live talks, with 75.8% agreeing they ran more smoothly. There was a very strong correlation between engagement and overall lecture rating (correlation coefficient 0.94). There was also a strong correlation between the number of questions asked by the lecturer and engagement (correlation coefficient 0.55). Lecturers presenting with live video next to their slides were significantly more engaging (91% vs 83%; p<0.001). The use of webinar chat to allow participants to answer questions was significantly more engaging (91.5% vs 87.7%; p < 0.05). Using the Q&A function during the talk was not significantly more engaging (p>0.05). Conclusions Online surgical teaching has many benefits over face-to-face surgical teaching and is therefore likely to continue even after COVID-19 is forgotten. Engagement can be increased by using live talks with video stream alongside the slides with questions and the ability to answer also crucial to engagement.

Courses to help medical students pass ‘Finals’ already exist but are typically expensive or can only be attended by a limited number of students. We describe the success of ‘The National Finals Revision Day' (NFRD) course, which we believe is sustainable and unique in terms of its combined scale and cost (£10 per person). The course was organised and taught by 12 junior doctors. In total, 300 students attended from 55% of UK medical schools. Attendees found the course both relevant (96.4%) and cost-effective (97%), whilst the 11 medical and surgical talks were of a high standard (90.1%). The organising committee felt confident to organise their own teaching course in the future with 100% having already run a course themselves since the NFRD course. The NFRD course was also used by 11/12 (91.7%) of the organising committee to achieve their Annual Review of Competency Progression (ARCP) and 12/12 (100%) of the organising committee to obtain jobs on training programmes in the UK. We provide guidance about how to organise similar large-scale events for those interested. Moving forward, the teaching course will be run at: (i) multiple times; (ii) multiple UK venues; (iii) run over two days to cover more medical and surgical topics; and (iv) include the option of attending via video link.

Aim Trauma and Orthopaedic (T&O) junior doctors are expected to manage on-calls involving a high volume of patients presenting with a wide variety of complex conditions. Despite this, many junior doctors feel poorly prepared at the start of their placements with individual hospitals providing variable levels of induction. We therefore aimed to provide a free ‘Introduction to T&O on-calls’ course for junior doctors. Method The online platform ‘Zoom’ was used to provide 13 interactive lectures by T&O trainees and consultants over a single day in July 2020. In total, 280 UK junior doctors attended with 91.1% completing feedback. Pre- and post-course questionnaires were used to establish improved knowledge. Results Only 7.4% of participants either had or were aware of a local trust induction covering T&O on-calls. The course had an overall satisfaction rating of 90%, with participants showing a 15.3% improvement in on-call knowledge from pre-course to post-course (p<0.05). Prior to the course only 35% of participants felt prepared to perform an on-call which increased to 77% after the course. Almost all participants (90%) agreed that similar courses in other surgical specialties (General surgery (79%), Urology (60%), Vascular surgery (60%), ENT 55%)) which are commonly cross covered by junior doctors would be hugely beneficial. Conclusions Our principal focus moving forward is to establish a formal national induction programme for T&O junior doctors that is recognised by the relevant T&O organisations. This will instil confidence in the junior doctors whilst achieving patient safety and excellence during busy T&O on-calls.