Status: Closed — this petition is no longer accepting signatures.
Final supporters
We as a group (East Midlands general surgery registrars) do not think that the general surgical registrars should be providing acute urological cover at QMC due to the following reasons
1) Management, including assessment, investigation, decision making and operative competence would require an ISCP-approved Case Based Discussion at Level 4 and at least 3 PBAs from 3 different consultants at Level 4. Unfortunately, none of the current registrars on the training program fulfil this requirement and we therefore cannot, manage a condition which is outwith any of our competencies with immediate effect and any referrals hence with are to be made to the competent clinicians i-e the urologist.
2) General surgery registrars cannot be expected to manage a condition that is outwith their Specialty Advisory Committee's syllabus without the relevant competencies in dealing with acute testicular torsions.
3) It effects and puts at risk safe provision of safe and timely service for the acutely ill the general surgical patients
4) There is no responsible consultant on site for the missed diagnosis or complications which may occur during the procedure?
5) Testicular torsions from Mansfield (more than 20 miles away) can travel to NCH to be seen by urologist, but we fail to understand why testicular torsions from QMC cannot travel less than 5 miles to see the urologist (which will take less then 20 minutes for them to see specialist in the condition)?
More like this
Medical Rota Change at Leicester Royal Infirmary
Lewisham Doctors Ask PM to Save Lewisham Hospital's A&E and Acute Services
2 Comments
Also not entirely sure who is training gen surg trainees to diagnose and manage these cases? I am training more and more core trainees and junior registrars who have never had any formal urology/paeds training, and have not worked in a gen surg setting where they manage adult torsions. When asking for pre- and intra-operative support, there seems to be an unwillingness to support because we are cross site. Yet we and our consultants frequently travel cross site to see patients and operate. I also wonder if there is a discrepancy in outcomes in exploration by gen surgeons vs. urologists?
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Status: Closed — this petition is no longer accepting signatures.
Final supporters
We as a group (East Midlands general surgery registrars) do not think that the general surgical registrars should be providing acute urological cover at QMC due to the following reasons
1) Management, including assessment, investigation, decision making and operative competence would require an ISCP-approved Case Based Discussion at Level 4 and at least 3 PBAs from 3 different consultants at Level 4. Unfortunately, none of the current registrars on the training program fulfil this requirement and we therefore cannot, manage a condition which is outwith any of our competencies with immediate effect and any referrals hence with are to be made to the competent clinicians i-e the urologist.
2) General surgery registrars cannot be expected to manage a condition that is outwith their Specialty Advisory Committee's syllabus without the relevant competencies in dealing with acute testicular torsions.
3) It effects and puts at risk safe provision of safe and timely service for the acutely ill the general surgical patients
4) There is no responsible consultant on site for the missed diagnosis or complications which may occur during the procedure?
5) Testicular torsions from Mansfield (more than 20 miles away) can travel to NCH to be seen by urologist, but we fail to understand why testicular torsions from QMC cannot travel less than 5 miles to see the urologist (which will take less then 20 minutes for them to see specialist in the condition)?
2 Comments
I understand that ‘testicles shouldn’t travel’, and the potential problems with an overburdened ambulance service, and extended timelines. But urologists can travel. I am still at a loss to understand why the urologists cannot travel around the ring road from NCH to QMC (which takes less than 20mins) to deal with these, in the same way that (out of 8-5pm) we travel to NCH to deal with any NCH Gen Surgery emergencies, even when we are overloaded with pressing emergencies on the QMC campus.
Also not entirely sure who is training gen surg trainees to diagnose and manage these cases? I am training more and more core trainees and junior registrars who have never had any formal urology/paeds training, and have not worked in a gen surg setting where they manage adult torsions. When asking for pre- and intra-operative support, there seems to be an unwillingness to support because we are cross site. Yet we and our consultants frequently travel cross site to see patients and operate. I also wonder if there is a discrepancy in outcomes in exploration by gen surgeons vs. urologists?
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
I understand that ‘testicles shouldn’t travel’, and the potential problems with an overburdened ambulance service, and extended timelines. But urologists can travel. I am still at a loss to understand why the urologists cannot travel around the ring road from NCH to QMC (which takes less than 20mins) to deal with these, in the same way that (out of 8-5pm) we travel to NCH to deal with any NCH Gen Surgery emergencies, even when we are overloaded with pressing emergencies on the QMC campus.