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

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of laboratory-based simulator training on the ability of surgical trainees to perform diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee.

A total of 20 junior orthopaedic trainees were randomised to receive either a fixed protocol of arthroscopic simulator training on a bench-top knee simulator or no additional training. Motion analysis was used to assess performance objectively. Each trainee then received traditional instruction and demonstrations of diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee in theatre before performing the procedure under the supervision of a blinded consultant trainer. Their performance was assessed using a procedure-based assessment from the Orthopaedic Competence Assessment Project and a five-point global rating assessment scale.

In theatre the simulator-trained group performed significantly better than the untrained group using the Orthopaedic Competence Assessment Project score (p = 0.0007) and assessment by the global rating scale (p = 0.0011), demonstrating the transfer of psychomotor skills from simulator training to arthroscopy in the operating theatre. This has implications for the planning of future training curricula.

We have developed a list of 281 competencies deemed to be of importance in the training of orthopaedic surgeons. A stratified, randomised selection of non-university orthopaedic surgeons rated each individual item on a scale 1 to 4 of increasing importance. Summary statistics across all respondents were given. The mean scores and sds were computed. Secondary analyses were computed in general orthopaedics, paediatrics, trauma and adult reconstruction. Of the 156 orthopaedic surgeons approached 131 (84%) responded to the questionnaire. They rated 240 of the 281 items greater than 3.0 suggesting that competence in these was necessary by completion of training.

Complex procedures were rated to be less important. The structure, delivery and implementation of the curriculum needs further study. Learning activities are ‘driven’ by the evaluation of competencies and thus competency-based learning may soon be in the forefront of training programmes.