A review of gynaecological surgical practices for trainees and certified specialists in Australia by volume using MBS and AIHW databases. (26th April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: McCormack, Lalla; Nesbitt‐Hawes, Erin; Deans, Rebecca; Alonso, Anais; Lim, Claire; Li, Fiona; Knapman, Blake; Abbott, Jason A.
• Is Part Of: Australian and New Zealand journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. Volume 62:Number 4(2022)
• Page Start: 574
• Page End: 580
• Publication Date: 2022-04-26
• Subjects: gynaecology -- gynaecological surgical training, operative; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13523
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0004-8666

Abstract

Abstract : Background: There is a finite volume of surgery performed annually by trainees and certified specialists alike. The detailed assessment of this surgical substrate is important, since it guides true exposure in gynaecological surgical training and practice after fellowship. Aims: This study quantifies the volume and profile of major gynaecological surgical procedures performed in Australia within a specified five‐year period and discusses the implications for training and practice. Materials and Methods: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data were examined to quantify the total number of major gynaecological procedures performed between 2013 and 2018. Medicare data were analysed to quantify the number of billed procedures. These data were compared with published Australian RANZCOG trainees and operative gynaecologists, to estimate the potential annual average exposure for each procedure. Results: Major open, laparoscopic and vaginal surgeries constitute less than 27% of the 600 000 gynaecological procedures performed annually in Australia. Most major gynaecological surgeries are performed at rates lower than 12 cases per year for both trainees and specialists. Over the study period, laparotomies, vaginal hysterectomies and continence procedures decreased, and operative laparoscopies and laparoscopic hysterectomies increased. Conclusions: The volume of available major gynaecological procedures in Australia may not allow sufficient exposure for optimal training and practice for all trainees and specialists in operative gynaecology. This shortfall may compromise the ability to obtain and maintain proficiency in some core gynaecological operative procedures.