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 cost of the NHS, wastage within it and how much trusts have overspent is a national obsession. Despite these widespread opinions, the costs of individual treatments and impacts of non-attendance appear to be little understood. There is a paucity of literature with regards to patients’ awareness of costs associated with services provided by the NHS. The authors aim to ascertain whether patients are aware of the costs associated with care services provided, and if these data could aid educating patients on NHS costs to reduce missed appointments. A questionnaire was randomly distributed to new and review patients in our Oral and Maxillofacial outpatient and emergency departments from November-December 2017 asking them to estimate the cost of common services they may encounter, such as an outpatient appointment, an orthopantomogram (OPT), a CT head, and a full blood count test (FBC). The results demonstrate that 81% of patients surveyed underestimated the cost of their new patient appointment, with 34% underestimating the cost of their review appointment. The cost of an overnight stay in hospital was underestimated by 65% of patients, with 89% of patients underestimating the cost of an hours’s operating. The costs of a full blood count, an OPT and a CT head have been mostly overestimated by 89%, 77%, and 54% of patients respectively. The results show there is a wide variation in patients’ estimates of costs, with over 50% of patients overestimating the costs of investigations but underestimating the cost of their appointment/A&E attendance.

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.

Facial asymmetry secondary to unilateral condylar hyperplasia can be a diagnostic challenge to oral and maxillofacial surgeons. Single positron emission computed tomography (SPECT) scans provide a useful adjunct. We report a brief summary of the evidence describing the effectiveness of different methods of analysing SPECT scans and compare it with the results of a 10-year study at Sunderland Royal Hospital. Overall, both the evidence base and our study strongly favour use of the condyle:condyle ratio over the condyle:reference bone ratio, suggesting that no further comparisons are needed.

The Internet is a powerful method of acquiring and sharing information. In marketing and business, online visibility is vital for publicity and the reputation of an organisation. To our knowledge, the importance of such visibility in medicine in general, and in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) services in the UK, has not previously been investigated. We aimed to provide a better understanding of the way that patients use the Internet by asking 450 patients to complete a questionnaire when they attended outpatient OMFS departments at 2 centres. We also assessed the online visibility of the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) and investigated the correlation between the strength of online visibility and professional reputation. Results from the self-administered, anonymous, validated questionnaires showed that 82% of patients agreed that the Internet was a powerful source of information, and two-thirds associated online visibility with a good reputation. However, the perceived online visibility of the BAOMS was poor (2%). This study mirrors findings in business publications, and confirms the link between online visibility and professional reputation. It also shows that there is a gap between patients’ perceptions and the level of uptake of professional resources. We propose various strategies to bridge this gap and to promote the online visibility and professional reputation of the BAOMS and of OMFS services in the UK.