Review of the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme for oral and maxillofacial surgery aesthetics: are we underselling ourselves?

Aesthetic facial surgery is considered to be within the remit of the maxillofacial surgeon but this is not reflected currently in the trainees' curriculum. In contrast, the plastic surgery curriculum demands detailed training in facial aesthetics. In this paper we have compared the UK OMFS, plastics, and otolaryngology curricula, and used the feedback of trainees to suggest a new aesthetics curriculum. Our method was based on the first three steps of Kern's 1998 six-step model of curricula development: identification of problems, assessment of need, and goals or objectives. The cosmetic certification criterion of the Royal College of Surgeons was used as a baseline for comparison. There was huge variation in the detail and specification of the three specialties' curricula: plastics covered 11/11 of the assessed procedures, while OMFS and otolaryngology covered 7/11 And 4/11, respectively. A total of 45 trainees provided feedback and there was an overall consensus that more training in aesthetics would be beneficial, though accessibility to resources would be an issue. With input from the BAOMS aesthetics lead, our ambitious curriculum increases the number of logbooks to reflect our expertise in the head and neck. It also broadens the span of training over all years of specialist training and, most importantly, relaxes the criteria for transferrable skills. Embracing aesthetics as part of the core curriculum will be beneficial for the future of OMFS, and will produce more rounded surgeons at the end of training. Even the most optimistic observers cannot ignore the financial and logistical setbacks that will have to be faced to achieve this, but we hope that this paper will stimulate a discussion.