The introduction of plastic and reconstructive surgery to the University of Glasgow undergraduate medical core curriculum.

Abstract

Misperceptions of plastic surgery remain common among medical students and the medical community. This creates barriers in recruitment to specialty and patient referral. Before this study, there was no formal plastic surgery teaching in University of Glasgow undergraduate medical core curriculum. A plastic surgery teaching pilot was implemented for fourth year students. Oncoplastic breast surgery was used as an example of gold standard multidisciplinary reconstructive surgery. Surveys collected data before and after provision of teaching across four parameters; identification of plastic surgery subspecialties, understanding of plastic surgery, opinion of the pilot and curriculum, career preferences and gender. The response rate was 57% (n=160). The most and least recognised subspecialties were burns (48% (n=75)) and perineal and lower limb reconstruction (0% (n=0)), respectively, with more students identifying aesthetic surgery (16% (n=26)) than hand (9% (n=15)) or skin cancer surgery (6% (n=9)). The majority (129 (81%)) thought plastic surgery was poorly represented in their curriculum and wanted further information (98 (61%)). Reported understanding of plastic surgery significantly improved (p≤0.00005). Those interested in surgical careers increased from 39% (n=63) to 41% (n=66) with more males than females reporting interest (p≤0.05). This study introduced plastic and reconstructive surgery into the undergraduate curriculum and led to further increased plastic surgery teaching. It improved student understanding, desire to gain more experience in the specialty and interest in surgical careers. Teaching students about subspecialties is vital to dispel misconceptions, ensure appropriate referrals and ignite interest in those with aptitude for surgical careers.

Plastic Surgery Teaching to United Kingdom Undergraduate Medical Students: A Systematic Review

“…2 ), with some studies ( n = 4) not reporting current exposure to plastic surgery. 9 14 18 20 There was a great deal of variance in exposure between the studies: for example, at the University of Glasgow, Higgins and Thomson asserted that there was no current exposure to plastic and reconstructive surgery, 22 whereas according to Khatib et al, 71% of medical students had received teaching (either formal or informal) in plastic surgery. 11 Medical students' average exposure to plastic surgery was 29.44% across all the studies; however, it has to be noted that there were varying sample sizes between the studies, which may lead to bias.…”

“…Students would also have the opportunity to ask questions as the surgery proceeded. Further, 7 of the 15 studies recommended a voluntary form of teaching 9 11 12 13 14 16 2-, 5 recommended compulsory teaching, 10 15 17 18 22 and 3 suggested both. 8 19 21 …”

“…This was because it had a large sample size of 243 and a control group. The study by Higgins and Thomson 22 was rated as medium bias. This was because despite a sample size of 160, there was no blinding or control.…”

“…Forty-one abstracts were identified; following this, the full texts were screened, after which 15 studies were identified. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Any studies that did not fulfil the inclusion criteria or fulfilled the exclusion criteria were removed from the search. See Fig.…”

“…Of the 15 studies that were included in this systematic review, 11 were cross-sectional studies, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 were letters to the editor, 19 20 1 was a comparative study, 21 and 1 was a pilot study. 22 All the studies were published in English and were published after 2011.…”