David Lockington1, George M Saleh2, Anne Fiona Spencer3, John Ferris4. 1. Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, UK. davidlockington@hotmail.com. 2. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital and the UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK. 3. Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester, UK. 4. Gloucestershire Eye Unit, Cheltenham, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ophthalmic simulation is cost-effective in complication prevention. However, there is no consistent resource allocation to provide the necessary time and finance to sustain such activities. We wished to identify the current support for the regional Simulation Leads in the UK. METHODS: An online SurveyMonkey questionnaire was sent to all 26 UK ophthalmic regional Simulation Leads in February 2021 regarding current simulation activity and the degree of time and resource support available. RESULTS: There were 22 responses within 1 month (84.6% response rate). 72.7% run regular simulation induction events for new trainees. 60% run mandatory laser simulation events. 38.1% run immersive simulation (vitreous loss fire drill). 47.6% run yearly sub-specialty events. 45.5% were required to make additional work arrangements to run simulation events. 77.3% had no job plan time allocation for simulation. 59.1% dedicated >1 hr/week to simulation. 68.2% EYESI simulators were purchased via charity/endowments. 72.7% had access to dedicated dry lab simulation (40.9% wet lab). 40.9% used deanery funds to purchase initial model eyes (supplemented by charity (36.4%) and endowments (31.8%)). 65% used unspent study leave budgets for ongoing model eyes, yet 15% reported trainees purchasing their own. CONCLUSION: Nearly all ophthalmic simulation in the UK is undertaken via goodwill and personal commitment to excellence by the regional Simulation Leads. There is minimal allowance of time or finance for these vital activities, which is sporadic at best, and unsustainable. We call for the necessary investment and dedicated time allocation to permit ophthalmic simulation to be supported and maintained.
INTRODUCTION: Ophthalmic simulation is cost-effective in complication prevention. However, there is no consistent resource allocation to provide the necessary time and finance to sustain such activities. We wished to identify the current support for the regional Simulation Leads in the UK. METHODS: An online SurveyMonkey questionnaire was sent to all 26 UK ophthalmic regional Simulation Leads in February 2021 regarding current simulation activity and the degree of time and resource support available. RESULTS: There were 22 responses within 1 month (84.6% response rate). 72.7% run regular simulation induction events for new trainees. 60% run mandatory laser simulation events. 38.1% run immersive simulation (vitreous loss fire drill). 47.6% run yearly sub-specialty events. 45.5% were required to make additional work arrangements to run simulation events. 77.3% had no job plan time allocation for simulation. 59.1% dedicated >1 hr/week to simulation. 68.2% EYESI simulators were purchased via charity/endowments. 72.7% had access to dedicated dry lab simulation (40.9% wet lab). 40.9% used deanery funds to purchase initial model eyes (supplemented by charity (36.4%) and endowments (31.8%)). 65% used unspent study leave budgets for ongoing model eyes, yet 15% reported trainees purchasing their own. CONCLUSION: Nearly all ophthalmic simulation in the UK is undertaken via goodwill and personal commitment to excellence by the regional Simulation Leads. There is minimal allowance of time or finance for these vital activities, which is sporadic at best, and unsustainable. We call for the necessary investment and dedicated time allocation to permit ophthalmic simulation to be supported and maintained.
Authors: John D Ferris; Paul H Donachie; Robert L Johnston; Beth Barnes; Martina Olaitan; John M Sparrow Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen; Daniella Bach-Holm; Hadi Kjærbo; Klavs Højgaard-Olsen; Yousif Subhi; George M Saleh; Yoon Soo Park; Morten la Cour; Lars Konge Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: George M Saleh; James R Wawrzynski; Kamran Saha; Phillip Smith; Declan Flanagan; Melanie Hingorani; Clinton John; Paul Sullivan Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Thomas Charles Wood; Sundas Maqsood; William Sancha; Alex Saunders; David Lockington; Mayank A Nanavaty; Saul Rajak Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 4.456