Reconstructive Science – 2025 review results

Current priority areas

• 10 Year Health Plan for England: fit for the future
• Science in healthcare: Delivering the NHS Long Term Plan – The Chief Scientific Officer’s strategy

Stakeholder feedback

Feedback collecting through the Curriculum Library survey collected between January 2024 and November 2025. All stakeholder feedback is presented verbatim.

S-R-R1 Introduction to Prosthetics and Biomedical Rehabilitation

• no feedback received

S-R-R2 Introduction to Reconstructive Science Diagnostic and Treatment Pathways in Oncology

• no feedback received

S-R-R3 Introduction to Biomaterials and Treatment Planning in Trauma

• no feedback received

S-R-R4 Introduction to Craniofacial Treatment Planning and Surgical Environment

• no feedback received

S-R-S1 Craniofacial and Trauma Rehabilitation

• no feedback received

S-R-S2 Prosthetic Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and Surgical Planning

Training activities

• 11 – In my opinion, this should be changed to remove the paediatric element; in my experience, it has been really hard and sometimes impossible to find a patient who is CHILD with a congenital ear deformity.

Changes made

Module level changes

Programme level changes

• no changes made

Periodic review

This specialty curriculum requires significant change beyond the scope of an annual review.

Response – no

Rationale

Please provide an overview of the rationale for why the proposed changes are needed or why changes were not needed, with reference to stakeholder feedback.

Response

The stake holder feedback was very limited with only 1 comment received via the online link on a training activity. Direct contact was therefore made with several trainers who provided feedback related to the rotations and a few comments on the specialist modules. In light of this feedback minor changes were made to both at the suggestions given as these seemed appropriate and would provide greater clarity and definition to each of the training activities and rotations mentioned and mostly required just a rewording of the activity to reduce any ambiguity. Some activities were determined as too specific making it difficult sometimes for trainers to obtain the right case as in M1 where the text has been changed from “craniofacial implants for an auricular prosthesis” to “craniofacial implants for a facial prosthesis” permitting other facial prosthesis to be observed instead as many of the principles will be similar. In M8 and M9 making the distinction between craniofacial and orthognathic clinics. M13 looks at planning, designing and manufacturing a range of body contour prosthesis – so rather than a range of prosthesis it is now changed to a body contour prosthesis and the principles and manufacture techniques were considered to be very similar.

There are several considerations that should be discussed within a wider working group one of which is the comment provided by the on- line feedback. The point was made that perhaps the treatment of a child with a congenital ear deformity as it was difficult to find a case at that particular unit when required. These types of issues need to be discussed more broadly as treating a child would be considered different to that of an adult in terms of management and regulations. It may be the wider group consider this should remain as in some other specialties i.e. ocular prosthetics where students are sent to a unit that has these types of clinics as not all units provide the service. However, the point has been raised and requires appropriate discussion with a wider group of stake holders to determine whether the stake holders to consider whether this still has a place in the programme. Other similar challenges mentioned are where units do not have specific restorative cover and can this effect the ability to manufacture large Obturator cases with implant support. Again this will need wider discussion as to the option of planning but without the complexity of undertaking an actual case.

Other thoughts have included whether its’ possible to avoid repetition in some of the competencies where planning, designing and manufacturing custom made devices for trauma, oncology  and congenital cases appear in all years with similar considerations for patient centred care , material selection, risk assessment and communication with the MDT, and whether these could be cross referenced rather than re writing a number of times. A suggestion of writing a single reflective piece on patent centred care, consent and communication and then reference to all competencies was put forward and the same for quality, safety and governance.  There is a point here though that we are looking at customised patient care and so some of these issues might be different between patients – but again should be discussed amongst a wider stakeholder group with input on this from the NSHCS.

I confirm I have reviewed the Reflective Practice Guidance for ETAs and DTAs and have made any changes necessary.

Specialty Lead Editor signature: T J Coward
Date: 11 December 2025

Change control - completed by the school

Programme structure

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 16 December 2025

Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) mapping

• no changes to learning outcomes, HCPC mapping maintained

Completed by: Chris Fisher
Date: 16 December 2025