Volume 21, Issue 3 pp. 342-348
Original Article

Emergency general surgeons, subspeciality surgeons and the future management of emergency surgery: results of a national survey

N. R. A. Symons

Corresponding Author

N. R. A. Symons

Imperial College London and Speciality Registrar in General Surgery, North East Thames, London, UK

Correspondence to: N. Symons, Imperial College London and Speciality Registrar in General Surgery, North East Thames, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, St Mary's Hospital, South Wharf Road, London W2 1NY, UK.

E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
D. McArthur

D. McArthur

Heart of England Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK

Search for more papers by this author
A. Miller

A. Miller

University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK

Search for more papers by this author
A. Verjee

A. Verjee

ACPGBI Patient Liaison Group, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
A. Senapati

A. Senapati

ACPGBI EGS Working Group and Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 16 November 2018
Citations: 8

Abstract

Aim

This study aimed to survey consultants’ experience of working as or with emergency general surgery (EGS) surgeons and to investigate the role they fulfil in the management of general and subspeciality emergencies.

Method

An electronic survey, designed to capture both quantitative and qualitative data, was piloted and then circulated to members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

Results

Two hundred and forty-two responses were received from 848 recipients (a 29% response rate) covering 104 of 135 (77%) acute NHS Trusts in England. EGS surgeons were in post in 43/141 (30%) hospitals overall and 12/24 (50%) of hospitals in London. Most respondents working in units with EGS surgeons found them to be advantageous (46/63, 73%). Consultants working with EGS surgeons were significantly more likely to support their use (49/63, 78%) than those without them (83/178, 47%) (χ2 = 16.9, P < 0.001). EGS surgeons were considered to improve the delivery of EGS (78%), create time for subspecialists (70%) and provide service (73%). However, there were concerns about the quality of surgery (43%), an insufficient standard of specialist care (54%) and compromise in the training of juniors (25%). Respondents commented on a lack of job structure with a high attrition rate (21%), the insufficient quality of applicants (18%) and that subspecialization and split on-call was preferable (17%).

Conclusion

Respondents were supportive of the ability of EGS surgeons to relieve pressure on subspecialists; however, there were significant concerns about the sustainability and quality of the EGS surgeon role. Emergency colorectal resections should have the input of a surgeon who performs elective colorectal resections.

Conflicts of interest

The authors are members of the Emergency General Surgery Working Group of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. They declare no other conflict of interest.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.