Orthopaedic art: the ARCP**

Goya: Saturn devouring his son, 1823. Museo del Prado, Madrid

**for non-British readers, the ARCP is the Annual Review of Competency Progression. Nothing to be afraid of. Definitely not.

Old farts strike back: surgery and bible edition

...obviously not ALL the old stuff is good

If I may get biblical,  from the Book of Job, 12:12 - With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding.

With this in mind, although I've nothing against him personally, when I'm urged to read Atul Gawande's books about aspects of surgical practice, particularly outwith the technical skills, I wonder what makes him such an expert.

Here's the evidence:

Qualified in Medicine at Harvard in 1995 aged 30
Master of Public Health degree in 1999, then 6 years of residency training in surgery - ie. junior doctor acquiring experience - till 2003.
He spent quite a bit of time from the late 80's involved in writing magazine articles and working in Democratic politics.

His first book, Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science, came out in 2002, when he was still a junior doctor in training, far from the finished product. The next one Better: A Surgeon's Notes on Performance, was released 5 years later. I assume he'd been busy in clinical practice for this time, with possibly some of the previously noted extracurricular activities getting in the way occasionally.

An NHS consultant surgeon, 5 years in, working in a busy hospital is, in my view still very much on the learning curve. 'Surgical maturity', I would say, is at least 10 years in. Some people never get there.

Gawande's Wiki entry implies that from about 2009 onwards he was doing more and more non-surgical things, fair enough, he seems an interested and accomplished fellow, but I feel very strongly that the way you get better in medicine is, I'm afraid, long hours, year in year out, in the wards, the theatres and the clinics. It's a lifelong thing, even if - as I do - one has plenty of other interests.

One of the classic scenarios in the NHS is the consultant who having got to the top - as it was perceived in the old days - realises that he or she wants to get out. Often 'management' and 'governance' are the dubious beneficiaries of their career move, which amazingly usually involves telling working clinicians what to do. Not that I'm accusing Gawande of that, but some individuals closer to home, certainly.

Anyway, this preamble is to praise the benefits of long, hard won clinical experience, especially of the surgical kind. There is a significant difference between prescribing a drug - which could do harm - and opening someone up with a knife, which is intrinsically harmful before it gets better, even if everything goes well.

Is there a plausible alternative to working the hours? I think not. Don't get me started on the world of 'simulated surgery'.

All of which brings me to a fascinating interview with both Stephen Westaby (69), heart surgeon and Henry Marsh (67), neurosurgeon. Both have a public profile, both have performed thousands and thousands of challenging high end operations, for the NHS. With respect to the aforementioned competition, these are the guys that I want to hear from. They've also written books for the general public, as it happens.

There are numerous gems in the interview, here's some tasters:

HM:  We have this very complex relationship with patients. It’s not one of straightforward altruism at all; it’s a very difficult relationship. You have to be both hard and soft at the same time. You certainly don’t want to be empathetic. If empathy means you actually feel what your patients are going through, actually . . . you can’t do it.

...the problem is you could spend the entire national income on healthcare and everybody still dies — there is 100 per cent mortality — so you have to decide somehow where to set your artificial floor on that bottomless pit.

...[When he was PM] David Cameron made this speech about we must have “zero harm” in the NHS, which struck me as the most incredibly stupid thing to say because it suggests that when anything goes wrong, therefore somebody’s to blame. The whole point about medicine is it often goes wrong. The decision whether to operate or not, to recommend an operation or not, is all about probabilities, and these are very subjective, difficult judgments. Everything we do is in the face of uncertainty and a lot of the time patients come to harm. It doesn’t necessarily mean that anybody’s at fault. So I thought that was a very, very naive and rather silly thing to say.

SW:  The job is difficult enough without having the press and everybody else on your back. A British heart surgeon had the idea when he became the medical director of the NHS that surgeons’ death rates should be published and available for the newspapers. Let me ask you: which surgeons would have the highest death rates, the worst ones or the best ones? The best surgeons attract the worst patients like a magnet. So if you want to make your best surgeons defensive, you start counting the bodies and putting it into the public arena. My particular branch of the profession is now risk-averse. Fewer heart surgeons want to come to Britain to do heart surgery and the British especially don’t want to do heart surgery. They’re long operations, you can end up operating all night, every day of the week, and it’s taxing and it’s rotten when people die. It’s totally rotten to have to go out of an operating theatre and tell a couple of young parents that their baby’s just died on the operating table. It’s misery. None of us lose patients because we’re careless or don’t care. So I’ve seen my profession wrecked, I’m afraid.

HM:  Forty years ago, the power structure in hospitals in this country was very simple. There was a senior doctor, a senior nurse and one manager, and basically the hospitals are run more or less by the senior doctors, for better or for worse. Now you have a whole series of competing pyramids. The management, the doctors, the nurses — more or less autonomous now — the other paramedics and physios and people like that, so there’s a real sense of nobody being in charge. I would go to work in the morning and I wouldn’t know what I was going to do that day because it all depends. Is there a bed? Is there an intensive-care unit bed? Is there a bed on the high-dependency unit? You have to negotiate with each of these individual power structures, it’s deeply chaotic

...Another example is that, after the Stafford scandal [over nursing care] and the Francis inquiry [into it], the General Medical Council wrote to all the doctors saying that when a mistake is made you must apologise and then it said that this is usually the duty of the senior clinician; in other words, whoever makes the mistake, muggins here has to go and say sorry. And then thirdly it added that for an apology to be meaningful, it must be genuine. If the GMC can’t see there’s a problem here — if an apology is compulsory, how can you force it to be genuine? Well, the answer is that it is genuine if the senior doctors have a sense of authority, if they feel they’re trusted and then they do feel responsible for what happens in their department.

Just superb, and not calculated or self-serving, simply real world experience of something very important. Westaby's line "The best surgeons attract the worst patients like a magnet" is very very true.

I'm also ending with a bit of biblical advice, Jeremiah 6:16 - put yourself on the ways of long ago and enquire about the ancient paths: which was the good way? Take it then, and you shall find rest

Trainees, your aged consultants will guide you in 'the ways of long ago'. Catch them before they retire.

The 654 year old surgeon

The oldies we quote are usually Hippocrates, Galen and folk like that. Here is a new one for me:

Guy de Chauliac makes some good points. It gets a bit tricky towards the end for some surgeons, perhaps. He appears to have been an early proponent of simulated surgery or skills labs, according to Wikipedia:

 "It was seemingly from books that [Chauliac] learned his surgery.... He may have used the knife when embalming the bodies of dead popes, but he was careful to avoid it on living patients".

Dead popes can't be easy to come by.

Bearing in mind the bafflingly poor knowledge of anatomy in UK undergraduates now, he makes another observation:

"A surgeon who does not know his anatomy is like a blind man carving a log"

I've assisted at operations like that.

Probably not peer reviewed. 

Orthopaedic heroes: the sage of Oswestry

Back in the day, about the time when the FRCSOrth examination changed from being voluntary, with a less structured format, to compulsory (though even then it was still a moderately agreeable experience), there were relatively few examination preparation courses. This was the mid 90's, and the main course, I would say, was the one run in Oswestry, overseen by a relatively small group of surgeons, one of whom was David Jaffray.

He was an eye opener to many of the attendees, for quite a few reasons. He had an unreconstructed North East Scottish accent, an unusually informal approach to meeting strangers ("is NAME REDACTED still ******** NAME REDACTED?" he immediately enquired when learning which hospital we'd been working in), a very caring attitude to trainees and patients, and he was an awesomely good teacher. Quite superb, and very funny.

An example might illustrate some of this,  I think I remember it accurately.  He'd been up for a job in the university department of orthopaedics at my hospital, quite a few years before, as Senior Registrar/Lecturer. He came up the day before, to have the standard look round, and try to meet people (still essential, by the way). In the course of this, he began to feel that he didn't particularly want the job. He probably hadn't met the cream of the department, to be honest, but I knew exactly what he meant. The trouble was, he was manifestly the best candidate, and was almost certain to get it offered to him. Backing out at this point was considered very bad form, and difficult to explain. As he put it "I realised that I had no choice. I had to sabotage my own interview". The next day dawned, and the interview panel was the usual mix of university, management, potential NHS colleagues, an external and so on. The questions began, and it came to the turn of the extremely famous and acerbic professor of general surgery, representing 'undergraduate education'. "Mr Jaffray, tell me, what would you suggest to improve our undergraduate course in orthopaedics ?"

I will pass you over to DJ's words, which I still recall: "This was my opportunity, I had to act fast. I looked at him and said firmly 'abandon it!' " This apparently did not go down too well.  "It did the trick. After that I had no chance".

Perfect. And there are lots of other similar anecdotes .

I can't say I knew him really, but we had the odd contact about trainees. He was unfailingly helpful and completely up to speed on all aspects of training, as well as being very frank. Ask around, the man is a bit of a legend.

All of which leads me to the short memoir he put into BJJ News, which is a pure and perfect gem.

If you read this blog, you'll see that one of its themes is the value of listening to the wise older surgeons, many of whom are both highly rated as surgeon/clinicians but also funny, smart and charismatic figures. There are lots of fine surgeons about. There are probably fewer really gifted  trainers. There are even fewer who combine the two at a very high level.

The paragraph on the right is a tad pessimistic , and I can vouch from my own experience that being ...er...candid  (as opposed to confrontational) is often welcomed by senior management who may be as sick of the daft aspects of bureaucracy as you are. Meeting colleagues face to face is nearly always the best way of dealing with issues. Beyond that, the whole article is laden with  reflections, wisdom, humour and practical tips, culminating in a profound final bit of maternal advice.

Read and learn!

Old farts may be correct shocker!!

From a recent BMA News (normally awful), presented without comment, other than to say: good points, well made.

True dat

Surgery is a serious business

I was searching for a suitable metaphor to encapsulate certain aspects of surgical training, particularly - as in orthopaedics - those areas that require the use of potentially injurious high tech equipment.

I think I've found it.

Enthusiasm alone is no substitute for adequate training, and if trainers lack interest in their trainees, failing to assess their capabilities and not showing the necessary respect between colleagues, bad things can happen....

An orthopaedic Christmas Carol, sort of

With a nod to Charles Dickens, this is about the ghosts of Orthopaedics Past, Orthopaedics Present and Orthopaedics Future. The reminiscences and reflections of surgeons late in their career or at retirement are a regular feature of this blog (label: wise surgeon). They really are  fascinating, and a treasure trove of useful thoughts.

This is Gordon Bannister, one of the best known British orthopods of the past 30 years, a very fine trainer and researcher, and generally a good guy, part of the Bristol centre of excellence.

He is no Luddite, but I draw your attention to a few things:

1. In the old days "senior consultant staff..had long since delegated acute trauma to their registrars. As a result, registrars acquired a wealth of experience". That's what happened to me much of the time. It doesn't happen now, which is both good and bad.

2. "At that time (the 80's) a 1:2 rota was common, occasionally tiredness ensued. The number of trainees increased whilst their experience declined". There is no way round this fact - you have to do the operations (and see the acute presentations) to get good. Most of my rotas were actually 1:3.  The promotion of the surrogate experience of 'simulated surgery' tells you how far things have gone. Note this from the former president of the RCS, Norman Williams. My view is that the New Deal has been even more damaging to training, morale and running a unit than the EWTD.

3. It was (and still should be) a lot of fun. If it consistently is not, then you may be in the wrong job.

4. I could not agree more that the demise of the true generalist to be replaced by self-anointed 'superspecialists' has been both stupid and damaging. It will be interesting to see what all the hip arthroscopy specialists will be doing in 10 years time.

Lastly, I would highlight the segment on NHS management and the conclusion. It's actually surprising how many empathetic and quality managers you encounter, but the long lasting damage wrought by the bad ones (and their political masters) is quite something.




(Thanks to BJJ News, September 2015)

Surgical teaching and the mating habits of the pheasant

A tenuous analogy, to be honest

As a trainer, Philosophy #1 is tempting, particularly when you're a new consultant.

The trainees in my deanery have pretty full logbooks, and we get trainer feedback that tells us if we're not giving trainee cases. But, there is an unhappy and impractical obsession with some surgical trainees putting operating as a priority far beyond clinical assessment, ward work, outpatient clinics and all the other stuff that doctors - as surgeons, believe it or not are doctors - should be doing.

To be fair the UK ISCP system using work based assessments does make an attempt to deal with this, albeit there's a limit to how much you can bureaucratise clinical work and clinical education.

At the very least Leo Gordon's phrase: awarding surgical responsibility without demanding (such) knowledge sells the resident short. In a greater sense it sells short the discipline of surgery...merits a little bit of contemplation.

And the penultimate paragraph is 100% true.

What have the Americans ever done for us?

Jasper Johns, Flag, 1954. MoMA

It's true that the greatest advances in skeletal trauma and orthopaedics are predominantly European in origin (and many of them are British), but our friends in the States catch up quickly. I remember being at the American Academy meeting about 15 years ago, having been doing a lot of MIPPO fixation for damage control for about 3 years, after the Hannover trauma stars like Krettek had published really wonderful papers on it. At the AAOS meeting they had one guy presenting about 10 femoral MIPPO's to a sceptical audience. Now they're completely on top of it.

Areas where they do have a great track record of innovation include spines and an interest of mine, lower limb revision arthroplasty. Kelly Vince on knees, for example, is a truly great surgeon and educator, one of many North Americans (I know he's Canadian) in that field, and there are lots of revision hip stars like Paprosky, the Mayo guys, lots of them.

Which brings me to Charlie Engh, who has graced numerous CCJR meetings. He is the man behind the AML cementless fully porous coated stem, which like Paprosky's Solution stem really cracked the problem of the difficult femoral revision. There are now quite a few imitations. I can't stand modularity on revision femoral stems - I regard it primarily as a marketing ploy for companies, and it pushes the price up - as it's nearly always unnecessary and complicates matters. The AML had a modular head and that was it, although there a couple of variants now. This is not an advert - I use one of its competitors, I'm just paying homage to Charlie.

Anyway, here is a great reminiscence by the man himself, on his career and the development of orthopaedics in the USA over that period. It's followed by a minimum of 10 year follow up on the fully porous coated femoral revision stem - a landmark paper in my view.




That piece mentions the other Engh brother, Gerry, also an orthopaedic surgeon. I once saw him present a case - with videos - of a patient with no arms who drove a car with their feet on the wheel. Gerry did an ACL reconstruction (I think on both knees) followed by medial AND lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. The end of the talk showed a new video - back driving the car. I'm not making this up. Wonderful.


Here's the 10 year outcome paper. Relatively few cases, but difficult ones, and a long follow up. Most surgeons and patients would be happy to get a good 10 years (and more) in cases like this.

A little politics: MMC and dumbing down

It's that time of year again, when doctors just over one year out of medical school are being nudged into a straitjacket of specialty training before they've even experienced a small percentage of their possible career options. Yes, it's the annual expression of MMC (Modernising Medical Careers, from 2005).

Very many of us felt it was an unnecessarily doctrinaire and remarkably bureaucratic approach to careers, particularly when you're dealing with some very high achieving individuals who would not gain from stifling their career options, and nor would the taxpayer who paid for their education. In addition, Ken Calman's late 90's superb postgraduate training reform programme had only just bedded in, and it was a fantastic improvement from what had gone before. It was abandoned prematurely by the self-appointed 'great and the good' of UK medicine. Their mantra was 'something must be done for the SHO's'. In fact many SHO jobs were deservedly popular for lots of reasons, and it's a pretty odd motive for reorganising the whole training structure (again).

So why did we bother with MMC? Apart from glory hunting by ageing clinicians eager to reduce their clinical commitments, consultant oncologist (and top irritant of governments) Clive Peedell  thought it was fairly obvious: to save money. He might be right.

I take the view that this was the then government's plan to undermine all those professions which retained the public's affection/respect despite their faults: teaching, the clergy, medicine and others. I still think that. Everyone has to be similar/dumbed down, everyone has to become primarily an employee, as opposed to a vocationally minded self-motivating highly expert clinician. It went in tandem with the disastrous and extraordinarily cynical changes to the GP contract - which has wrecked much of out of hours care - and the awful New Deal/EWTD that has badly damaged essential apprenticeship-style training. Simulated surgery is not the answer (I might return to that in another post).

The GMC did their bit by - in conjunction with the government - radiating an aura that doctors probably were not to be trusted after all, and the "presumption of innocence" rule in complaints and Fitness to Practice investigations virtually disappeared.  Read the heartfelt comments at the end of this piece on the GMC's own website.

Anyway, back to Clive. This 9 year old piece still resonates.