The number of patients in buprenorphine opioid substitution therapy (BOST) or methadone opioid substitution therapy (MOST) programs is increasing. If these patients require surgery, it is generally agreed that methadone should be continued perioperatively. while some also recommend that buprenorphine is continued, concerns that it may limit the analgesic effectiveness of full mu-opioid agonists have led others to suggest that it should cease before surgery. However, no good evidence exists for either course of action. Therefore, we undertook a retrospective cohort study comparing pain relief and opioid requirements in the first 24 hours after surgery in 22 BOST and 29 MOST patients prescribed patient-controlled analgesia. There were no significant differences in pain scores (rest and movement), incidence of nausea or vomiting requiring treatment, or sedation between the BOST and MOST patient groups overall, or between those patients within each of these groups who had and had not received their methadone or buprenorphine the day after surgery. There were also no significant differences in patient-controlled analgesia requirements between BOST and MOST patient groups overall, or between patients who did or did not receive MOST on the day after surgery. BOST patients who were not given their usual buprenorphine the day after surgery used significantly more patient-controlled analgesia opioid (P=0.02) compared with those who had received their dose. These results confirm that continuation of buprenorphine perioperatively is appropriate.

Background: Exit examinations in medicine are 'high stakes' examinations and as such must satisfy a number of criteria including psychometric robustness, fairness and reliability in the face of legal or other challenges. Aims: We have undertaken a critical review of the exit examination from the University of Adelaide focussing on the written components. This examination consisted of an objective structure clinical examination (OSCE), a multiple choice question (MCQ) paper and a modified essay question (MEQ) paper. Methods: The two written papers were assessed for item writing flaws and taxonomic level using modified Bloom's criteria. Curriculum experts independently assessed adequacy of the examination for validity and fidelity. Results: The overall examination had good fidelity and validity. The results of the MEQ and MCQ were strongly and positively correlated and there was a weak negative correlation between these papers and the OSCE. The MEQ had a higher proportion of questions focussed on recall of knowledge and the questions were more structurally flawed compared with the MCQs. The MEQ re-marking process resulted in lower scores than were awarded by the original, discipline-based expert markers. The MEQ paper failed to achieve its primary purpose of assessing higher cognitive skills. Conclusion: The University of Adelaide's MBBS programme has since dropped the MEQ paper from its exit examination and is evaluating in its place the Script Concordance test.