Search

OMFS training is perceived as a long and expensive pathway although papers have shown it compares favourably with other surgical specialties. Every OMFS clinician has a vested interest and duty continually to improve the quality of training and minimise costs, especially to trainees at junior levels. Any serious proposal to fundamentally change the format of training, must be given due consideration by all stakeholders. In 2016, a British Medical Journal article whose authors included the BAOMS President of that year and OMFS Specialty Advisory Committee (SAC) Chair, posed the question - should the future of OMFS training revert to single dental degree, change to single medical degree - or continue as a dual degree specialty? The BMJ publication was discussed at the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) Council in March 2016 and all present unanimously supported the dual degree pathway. Later that year a formal proposal was made by the BAOMS immediate past President that training in the UK change to single medical degree ‘Maxillofacial Surgery’ similar to the training in Spain, France or Italy. Evidence around the risks and benefits of making this change to OMFS training was assembled and reviewed by BAOMS Council in March 2017. BAOMS Council once again unanimously supported continuing OMFS as a dual degree specialty with the observation that the quality of patient care which this training provided was the specialty’s Unique Selling Point or USP. The requirement for both degrees to provide care for OMFS patients had been confirmed by external scrutiny on two separate occasions by the responsible regulators. In this paper, we outline the key steps to be considered when making major changes in the OMFS training pathways using this event as an example and the suggestion that those proposing changes should assemble and present evidence to support their proposal using the template provided.

The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) has been at the centre of the transition of our specialty in the UK from a branch of dentistry to one of the 10 UK surgical specialties. In this role it has, at different times, pushed boundaries against resistance from other specialties, and redirected the ambitions of the deputy chair of the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB) review to produce recommendations that were exactly what OMFS needed. The editorial Our specialty. The future. Is the writing on the wall? is just the most recent iteration of half a century of internal debate. Whilst there are some issues with how the authors have presented recruitment data (their figures omit ST1 run-through and do not recognise that the same single, unfilled post may be present for two or more national selection rounds) their first paragraph A debate that we feel is long overdue presents the greatest concern. In this short communication, we illustrate that in the last 20 years the specialty has not been short of debate. In the absence of new and specific evidence that any other route forward would be supported by our national training committee (OMFS SAC), our regulator (GMC), the breadth of our specialty (including our current specialists and our current and future trainees) and, most importantly, would actually address our problems, we should avoid putting energy into an empty debate. Our focus should be on delivering the PMETB recommendations and inspiring our future trainees.