Rami Madanat1, Tatu J Mäkinen2, Daniel Ryan3, Gazi Huri4, Nikolaos Paschos5, Joao Vide6,7. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Sairaalakatu 1, Vantaa PL 900, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland. rami.madanat@hus.fi. 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Sairaalakatu 1, Vantaa PL 900, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland. 3. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Great Western Road, Gloucester, UK, GL50 3BW. 4. Orthopaedics and Traumatology Department, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, 06320, Ankara, Turkey. 5. Department of Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, Pennsylvania Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 800 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. 6. Orthopaedics and Traumatology Department, Hospital Beatriz Angelo, Lisbon, Portugal. 7. Hospital Particular do Algarve, Faro, Portugal.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare differences in current orthopaedic and trauma training programs across Europe. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the FORTE (Federation of Orthopaedic Trainees in Europe) representatives of 25 different European countries, of which 18 responded. The questionnaire included demographic information and information concerning the structure of the training programs, including duration, selection, and mandatory training requirements. RESULTS: The number of trainees per specialist varied between countries from a ratio of 1:2 to 1:7. Residency was generally five to six years in all the countries. In more than half of the countries selection was interview-based. Nearly all countries utilized a logbook. About 80% of the participating countries had a final examination. When assessing the components of training it was found that only one country (the United Kingdom) had mandatory minimum requirements for (1) courses, (2) surgical procedures, (3) research and (4) leadership. Nearly 40% of the participating countries had only one or none of these four components as a mandatory training requirement. CONCLUSIONS: There are many similarities in training programs, but some important differences remain in overall requirements and final qualification. The main limitation of this study was that we were unable to get data from all the European countries. FORTE will continue to serve as a forum for sharing best practices with the ultimate goal of improving and harmonizing the level of orthopaedic training across Europe. Future studies should aim to include further details about training programs as well as to include data from more countries.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare differences in current orthopaedic and trauma training programs across Europe. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the FORTE (Federation of Orthopaedic Trainees in Europe) representatives of 25 different European countries, of which 18 responded. The questionnaire included demographic information and information concerning the structure of the training programs, including duration, selection, and mandatory training requirements. RESULTS: The number of trainees per specialist varied between countries from a ratio of 1:2 to 1:7. Residency was generally five to six years in all the countries. In more than half of the countries selection was interview-based. Nearly all countries utilized a logbook. About 80% of the participating countries had a final examination. When assessing the components of training it was found that only one country (the United Kingdom) had mandatory minimum requirements for (1) courses, (2) surgical procedures, (3) research and (4) leadership. Nearly 40% of the participating countries had only one or none of these four components as a mandatory training requirement. CONCLUSIONS: There are many similarities in training programs, but some important differences remain in overall requirements and final qualification. The main limitation of this study was that we were unable to get data from all the European countries. FORTE will continue to serve as a forum for sharing best practices with the ultimate goal of improving and harmonizing the level of orthopaedic training across Europe. Future studies should aim to include further details about training programs as well as to include data from more countries.
Authors: Johnathan A Bernard; Jonathan R Dattilo; Uma Srikumaran; Bashir A Zikria; Amit Jain; Dawn M LaPorte Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Aidin Eslam Pour; Thomas L Bradbury; Patrick Horst; John J Harrast; Greg A Erens; James R Roberson Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Hangama C Fayaz; Raymond M Smith; Mohammad H Ebrahimzadeh; Hans-Christoph Pape; Javad Parvizi; Khaled J Saleh; Jens-Peter Stahl; Johannes Zeichen; James F Kellam; Javad Mortazavi; Ashok Rajgopal; Vivek Dahiya; Wolfgang Zinser; Leonid Reznik; Igor Shubnyakov; Marko Pećina; Jesse B Jupiter Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2019-07
Authors: Panayiotis D Megaloikonomos; Martin Thaler; Vasilios G Igoumenou; Tommaso Bonanzinga; Marko Ostojic; André Faria Couto; Jasmin Diallo; Ismail Khosravi Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 3.075