Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the provision of orthopaedic care across the UK. During the pandemic orthopaedic specialist registrars were redeployed to “frontline” specialties occupying non-surgical roles. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on orthopaedic training in the UK is unknown. This paper sought to examine the role of orthopaedic trainees during the COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on postgraduate orthopaedic education. Methods. A 42-point questionnaire was designed, validated, and disseminated via e-mail and an instant-messaging platform. Results. A total of 101 orthopaedic trainees, representing the four nations (Wales, England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), completed the questionnaire. Overall, 23.1% (23/101) of trainees were redeployed to non-surgical roles. Of these, 73% (17/23) were redeployed to intensive treatment units (ITUs), 13% (3/23) to A/E, and 13%(3/23%) to general medicine. Of the trainees redeployed to ITU 100%, (17/17) received formal induction. Non-deployed or returning trainees had a significant reduction in sessions. In total, 42.9% (42/101) % of trainees were not timetabled into fracture clinic, 53% (53/101) of trainees had one allocated theatre list per week, and 63.8%(64/101) of trainees did not feel they obtained enough experience in the attached subspecialty and preferred repeating this. Overall, 93% (93/101) of respondents attended at least one weekly online webinar, with 79% (79/101) of trainees rating these as useful or very useful, while 95% (95/101) trainees attended online deanery teaching which was rated as more useful than online webinars (p = 0.005). Conclusion. Orthopaedic specialist trainees occupied an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on orthopaedic training. It is imperative this is properly understood to ensure orthopaedic specialist trainees achieve competencies set out in the training curriculum. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-11:676–682

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 imminent introduction of the new Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) curriculum, and the implementation of the Improving Surgical Training initiative, reflect yet another paradigm shift in the recent history of trauma and orthopaedic training. The move to outcome-based training without time constraints is a radical departure from the traditional time-based structure and represents an exciting new training frontier. This paper summarizes the history of T&O training reform, explains the rationale for change, and reflects on lessons learnt from the past.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-3:181–190.

We aimed to determine quality of life and burnout among Dutch orthopaedic trainees following a modern orthopaedic curriculum, with strict compliance to a 48-hour working week. We also evaluated the effect of the clinical climate of learning on their emotional well-being.

We assessed burnout, quality of life and the clinical climate of learning in 105 orthopaedic trainees using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, linear analogue scale self-assessments, and Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT), respectively.

A total of 19 trainees (18%) had poor quality of life and 49 (47%) were dissatisfied with the balance between their personal and professional life. Some symptoms of burnout were found in 29 trainees (28%). Higher D-RECT scores (indicating a better climate of learning) were associated with a better quality of life (r = 0.31, p = 0.001), more work-life balance satisfaction (r = 0.31, p = 0.002), fewer symptoms of emotional exhaustion (r = -0.21, p = 0.028) and depersonalisation (r = -0,28, p = 0.04).

A reduced quality of life with evidence of burnout were still seen in a significant proportion of orthopaedic trainees despite following a modern curriculum with strict compliance to a 48-hour working week. It is vital that further work is undertaken to improve the quality of life and reduce burnout in this cohort.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1133–8.

The Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board wants either ‘run through’ or ‘uncoupled’ orthopaedic training to be adopted throughout the United Kingdom but it is not willing to let both continue together as is the current situation. This annotation explores the argument for and against ‘run through’ training

Aims

The aim of the study was to compare two methods of calculating pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT), either by using the femoral heads or acetabular domes to determine the bicoxofemoral axis, in patients with unilateral or bilateral primary hip osteoarthritis (OA).

The aim of this study was to determine whether the foundation programme for junior doctors, implemented across the United Kingdom in 2005, provides adequate training in musculoskeletal medicine. We recruited 112 doctors on completion of their foundation programme and assessed them using the Freedman and Bernstein musculoskeletal examination tool. Only 8.9% passed the assessment. Those with exposure to orthopaedics, with a career interest in orthopaedics, and who felt that they had gained adequate exposure to musculoskeletal medicine obtained significantly higher scores. Those interested in general practice as a career obtained significantly lower scores. Only 15% had any exposure to orthopaedics during the foundation programme and only 13% felt they had adequate exposure to musculoskeletal medicine. The foundation programme currently provides inadequate training in musculoskeletal medicine. The quality and quantity of exposure to musculoskeletal medicine during the foundation programme must be improved.