Over recent years there has been a massive increase in the usage of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) by the general public. There are mixed views regarding the safety and efficacy of e-cigs, even among healthcare professionals. While some individuals view e-cigs as a public health concern, others recommend them as a safe alternative to conventional cigarettes for smokers who are willing to quit. Since e-cigs are a new phenomena, many clinicians are unaware of their impact on users (known as vapers), who may seek medical advice regarding their use. This clinical review aims to educate healthcare professionals regarding the advantages and disadvantages of e-cigarettes and to discuss whether e-cigarettes help users quit smoking or whether they renormalise smoking. This article will describe the contents of e-cigs and how they are used, the history, advantages, disadvantages and then balance the positive and negative aspects of their use. Due to the lack of long-term follow up of the health effects of e-cigarettes, caution is advised with their use.

Background Otolaryngology (ENT), plastic surgery, ophthalmology and dermatology are medical specialties which tend to receive less coverage in UK medical school curricula compared to larger, generalist specialties. As a result, there are fewer opportunities for medical students to learn and to cultivate an interest. There are numerous papers that report concerns about junior doctors’ ability to manage conditions within these specialties, which may jeopardise patient safety. The aim of our pilot project was to increase medical students’ interest and knowledge of ENT, plastic surgery, ophthalmology and dermatology. In addition to describing our project, we present and discuss literature on UK undergraduate education in these specialties and its impact on preparedness of junior doctors and future career choices. Methods One hundred twelve final year medical students at Newcastle University were invited to take part in a voluntary two-part (written and clinical) exam, in which prizes could be won and all participants would receive a certificate of participation. We distributed two online surveys to the students, one administered before the exam and one afterwards. Data was collected regarding the students’ motivation for entering the prize exam and the students’ baseline interest and knowledge in these specialties before and after the prize exam. Free-text responses were collected about the students’ opinion of the project and whether participation was beneficial. Results Sixteen students participated in the exam. There was a statistically significant increase in the students’ knowledge in ENT (p < 0.000), plastic surgery (p < 0.000), ophthalmology (p < 0.028) and dermatology (p < 0.012) after participation in the exam, but not in their interest levels. ENT was the preferred specialty of our cohort. The students reported that they found participation beneficial to their learning, particularly receiving exam feedback and explanations to exam questions. Conclusions This pilot project was a useful intervention in increasing medical students’ knowledge in these specialties, but not in their levels of interest. It also demonstrates that medical students are willing to participate in voluntary initiatives (in their spare time) to gain more learning opportunities and that medical students value timely exam feedback to guide their revision.

No abstract

No abstract