Does current provision of undergraduate education prepare UK medical students in ENT? A systematic literature review

Objective To systematically identify and analyse all published literature relating to the provision of undergraduate education for preparedness in ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgery, as perceived by medical students and clinicians in the UK.Design Systematic literature review.Data sources 5 major databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane and Web of Science. The literature search was conducted from February to April 2015.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Primary research or studies that report on the provision of undergraduate education for preparedness in ENT, from the perspective of medical students and clinicians in the UK. The timescale of searches was limited from 1999 onwards (ie, the past 15 years).Data extraction The literature search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers. Search terms used involved the combination and variation of 5 key concepts, namely: medical student, clinician, ENT, undergraduate medical education and UK. A data extraction form was designed for and used in this study, based on guidelines provided by the UK National Health Service (NHS) Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Textual narrative synthesis was used for data analysis.Results A total of 7 studies were included in the final review. 4 main themes were identified: confidence in managing patients, teaching delivery, student assessment and duration of rotations. A consistent finding in this review was that the majority of final year medical students and junior doctors did not feel adequately prepared to practise ENT. Important factors influencing preparedness in ENT included the duration of clinical rotations, the opportunity for hands-on learning and formal assessment.Conclusions The findings of this review suggest the need for further development of the ENT undergraduate curricula across the UK. However, there is insufficient evidence from which to draw strong conclusions; this in itself is beneficial as it highlights a gap in the existing literature and supports the need for primary research.