Since its introduction in 2007 the UKITE exam has been an annual event in the diary of Orthopaedic trainees. It aims to simulate the written FRCS (T&O) examination style and offers trainees practice, immediate feedback and an update of the progress they have made through their training. It also allows bench marking against their peers nationally. The editorial process has been overhauled to allow online editing of questions throughout the year, and this has streamlined the question selection process.

The fifth edition of UKITE was held in December 2011. 669 trainees and 35 non-trainees sat for the examination. Consistently over the five years of UKITE we have seen a similar distribution of results showing improving performance until the final year (64.5% for 2011) and a drop in the performance in the last year (56.6% for 2011). Overall 80% of the trainees felt the exam was fair and better than last year. 80% of the trainees who had sat FRCS (T&O) previously thought that the UKITE 2011 was similar in difficulty. 98% trainees want to sit it again and 95% thought there was educational value in sitting the exam. Over 93% were satisfied with central and local provisions made for the exam. Some examining centres in NHS hospitals faced server failure issues and provision was made to sit for their trainees to sit un-invigilated from home. The mean score for the invigilated examination (53.6%) was significantly (p< 0.001) lower than that of un-invigilated examination (63.6%).

UKITE continues to evolve and has become a regular feature in the post-graduate orthopaedic calendar. It is perceived as a useful way of revising and maintaining a core level of knowledge as part of the exam preparation.

Since its introduction in 2007 the UKITE exam has been an annual event in the diary of Orthopaedic trainees. It aims to simulate the written FRCS (T&O) examination style and offers trainees practice, immediate feedback and an update of the progress they have made through their training. It also allows bench marking against their peers nationally.

UKITE 2010 has made further progress and for the first time trainees from all the deaneries in UK participated. A total of 645 trainees appeared for the examination that was held in December 2010. We introduced remote access from home for trainees (N=171, 26.5%) who could not appear in an “examination centre”. An online editorial process was also introduced, which made the work of the question editing team easier.

The scores ranged from 25.5 to 93.4% with a mean of 54.2% (sd=11.8). The score consistently improved from ST1 (41.8%) to ST7 (64.3%) level and then declined at ST8 (54.7%) level. The mean score for candidates sitting at home (53.3%, sd=11.4) was similar (p=0.23) to those sitting at an invigilated examination venue (54.6%, sd=11.9). The extreme low and high scores were more frequent invigilated exam. The feedback suggested that 95% trainees felt that UKITE has educational benefit and 98% wish to sit again. 75% want it as an annual self-assessment tool. 80% feel that it was better than last year and of those who had sat FRCS (T&O) nearly 80% felt it was very similar.

UKITE continues to evolve and has become a regular feature in the post-graduate orthopaedic calendar. It is perceived as a useful way of revising and maintaining a core level of knowledge as part of the exam preparation.

The use of journal clubs and, more recently, case-based discussions in order to stimulate debate among orthopaedic surgeons lies at the heart of orthopaedic training and education. A virtual learning environment can be used as a platform to host virtual journal clubs and case-based discussions. This has many advantages in the current climate of constrained time and diminishing trainee and consultant participation in such activities. The virtual environment model opens up participation and improves access to journal clubs and case-based discussions, provides reusable educational content, establishes an electronic record of participation for individuals, makes use of multimedia material (including clinical imaging and photographs) for discussion, and finally, allows participants to link case-based discussions with relevant papers in the journal club.

The Leicester experience highlights the many advantages and some of the potential difficulties in setting up such a virtual system and provides useful guidance for those considering such a system in their own training programme. As a result of the virtual learning environment, trainee participation has increased and there is a trend for increased consultant input in the virtual journal club and case-based discussions.

It is likely that the use of virtual environments will expand to encompass newer technological approaches to personal learning and professional development.