What it takes to become an orthopaedic surgeon: A comparison of orthopaedic surgical training programmes in 10 countries focusing on structure and fellowship requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The quality of surgical training has been highlighted as one of the most important patient safety issues in the future. Training surgeons and supporting them to do their best should be considered integral in providing optimum and safe care for the individual patient and the best possible return on investment in training medical professionals. In 2011, an international consensus statement defined fundamental principles for surgical training. PURPOSE: This study examines orthopaedic surgical training to explore the similarities and differences in the requirements for trainees to obtain board certification in ten countries. METHODS: Countries of the Commonwealth Health Care Comparison: Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland were chosen to be compared. The relevant information was extracted from official information from authorities and administrative bodies. RESULTS: The study revealed significant differences in duration, organisation and assessment of training. So-called "competency-based" training is not featured in every country, and the manner of its implementation is variable. In particular, the numbers in surgical cases required to be accredited varies by country ranging from 1260 (UK) to 340 (Norway). CONCLUSION: Despite the recommendation in 2011 for some degree of uniformity across surgical training in industrialised countries, evidence suggests wide variation in the training programmes which is likely to be a concern in both quality of training as well as present and future patient safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".