Introduction: The doctorate is the third cycle of official university studies, which, through the defense of the doctoral thesis leads to the acquisition of the title of doctor or PhD from the Anglo-Saxon countries. Royal Decree law 99/2011 regulates doctoral programs, with a wide margin on quality requirements. The objective of this study is to find out if there is this variation in the requirements of the doctorate programs of the different departments of surgery of the Spanish public universities and to establish a quality scale. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study from 2/22/2021 to 3/3/2021, through a survey sent electronically to the professors of the departments of surgery. Results: Thirty-five departments of surgery were consulted, obtaining a response in 29 of them (82.9%). The observed variation regarding requirements has been basically in the quality of the research project, in fact in 25 (86.2%) there are no regulations on this. When it is presented in the form of a compendium of articles, these are required to be original in 15 (51.7%). Regarding the position as author, the doctoral student must be the preferred author, at least in 2 articles in 14 (48.4%) of the programs. In 14 departments (48.4%) there are no regulations on the position of the articles and quartiles of journals. When scoring the different programs according to their requirements, the variability is high, ranging between 2 and 19 points. Funding for the development of the doctorate is meager. Conclusions: There is a wide variability in the requirement of doctoral programs. Homogeneous levels of demand must be defined to promote and protect higher-level doctorates.@en

Context: High-quality cancer care should be accessible for patients and healthcare professionals. Involvement of patients as partners in guideline formation and consensus processes is still rarely found. EURECCA, short for European Registration of Cancer Care, is the platform to improve outcomes of cancer care by reducing variation in the diagnostic and treatment process. EURECCA acknowledges the important role of patients in implementation of consensus information in clinical practice. Objective: The aim of this article is to describe the process of involving patients in the consensus process and in developing the patient summary of the consensus for colon and rectal cancer care. Methods: The Delphi method for achieving consensus was used. Three online voting rounds and one tele-voting round were offered to an expert panel of oncology professionals and patient representatives. At four different stages, patients and/or patient representatives were involved in the process: (1) during the consensus process, (2) lecturing about the role of the patient, (3) development of the patient summary, and (4) testing the patient summary. Results: Representatives were invited to the voting and commenting rounds of this process and given an equal vote. Although patients were not consulted during the planning stages of this process, patient involvement increased following the panel's discussion of the implementation of the consensus among the patient population. After the consensus meeting, the patient summary was written by patient representatives, oncologists and nurses. A selection of proactive patients reviewed the draft patient summary; responses were positive and several patient-reported outcomes were added. Questionnaires to evaluate the use and implementation of the patient summary in daily practice are currently being developed and tested. Patient consultation will be needed in future planning for selection of topics. Discussion: The present study may function as a model for future consensus processes to involve patients at different stages and to implement both patient and healthcare professional versions in daily practice.@en