PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Hope, Carla AU - Lund, Jonathan AU - Griffiths, Gareth AU - Humes, David J TI - Differences in progression by surgical specialty: a national cohort study AID - 10.1101/2021.05.10.21256963 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.05.10.21256963 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/10/2021.05.10.21256963.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/05/10/2021.05.10.21256963.full AB - The aim of surgical training across the ten surgical specialties is to produce competent day one consultants. Progression through training is assessed by the Annual Review of Competency Progression (ARCP).Objective This study aimed to examine variation in ARCP outcomes within surgical training and identify differences between specialties.Design A national cohort study using data from United Kingdom Medical Education Database (UKMED) was performed. ARCP outcome was the primary outcome measure. Multi-level ordinal regression analyses were performed, with ARCP outcomes nested within trainees.Participants Higher surgical trainees (ST3-ST8) from 9 UK surgical specialties were included (vascular surgery was excluded due to insufficient data). All surgical trainees across the UK with an ARCP outcome between 2010 to 2017 were included.Results Eight thousand two hundred and twenty trainees with an ARCP outcome awarded between 2010 and 2017 were included, comprising 31,788 ARCP outcomes. There was substantial variation in the proportion of non-standard outcomes recorded across specialties with general surgery trainees having the highest proportion of non-standard outcomes (22.5%) and urology trainees the fewest 12.4%. After adjustment, general surgery trainees were 1.3 times more likely to receive a non-standard ARCP outcome compared to trainees in T&O (OR 1.33 95%CI 1.21-1.45). Urology trainees were 36% less likely to receive a non-standard outcome compared to T&O trainees (OR 0.64 95%CI 0.54-0.75). Female trainees and older age were associated with non-standard outcomes (OR 1.11 95%CI 1.02-1.22; OR 1.04 95%CI 1.03-1.05).Conclusion There is wide variation in the training outcome assessments across surgical specialties. General surgery has higher rates of non-standard outcomes compared to other surgical specialities. Across all specialities, female sex and older age were associated with non-standard outcomes.Strengths and limitationsThis is the first study investigating factors affecting ARCP outcome across all surgical specialities.The major strength of the study is the large sample size comprising all higher surgical trainees between 2010 and 2017.Unlike previous studies this study uses data from reliable sources and is not dependent on survey data.Limitations include the inability to investigate the causes behind our findings due to the nature of the analysis.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Trialnot a clinical trialFunding StatementThe University of Nottingham provided funding for the cost of publication for this article.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Queen Mary Ethics Committee decided that ethical review was not required for using data from UKMED.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data used in this study is held by UKMED and is available upon request.