Search

Introduction: In 2012 a national, standardised approach was taken to UK Dental Foundation 1 recruitment. Prior to that recruitment method was at the discretion of individual Deaneries. The new national system is interactive, including simulated patients to see how applicants perform in a clinical communication context. A question was whether simulated patient scores could/should be awarded as well as clinicians' scores. This paper presents score data collected in the first round of national DF1 recruitment centres, with focus on how clinical examiners and trained simulated patients rated applicants.Method: At the live recruitment events across four national centres score data were collected from observing clinical assessors and simulated patients on the communication station. On this occasion only the clinician awarded scores 'counted', but all simulated patients completed marking sheets to enable the process to be evaluated. Data were retrospectively analysed to test the hypotheses that there would be no significant scoring differences between centres and that inter-rater reliability, by applicant, between paired clinicians, and between clinicians and simulated patients would be strong.Results: Results showed encouraging consistency between assessors, with some differences between centres. Clinicians were more likely to offer a borderline score. In communication analyses empathy had the weakest correlation with the overall score, while professional attitude had the strongest correlation. Data supported the hypothesis that trained simulated patients can be considered as assessors. Their future inclusion offers candidates a dual perspective (clinical and non-clinical) on performance, and saves clinical time.Discussion Simulated patients scored consistently and value can be added by including different perspectives in interactive assessment. Robust training is needed in all assessor training.Conclusion: Simulated patients can usefully contribute to scoring in national dental recruitment centres. Lessons learned here can inform other dental assessments where stakeholders are already using, or considering using, simulated patients as assessors or co-assessors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To systematically review the effectiveness of routine dental checks of different recall frequencies in adults and children.Methods: Search methods included electronic bibliographic databases up to March 2001, relevant internet sites, citation checking and contact with experts and professional dental bodies.Inclusion Criteria: (1) STUDY DESIGN: any; (2) POPULATION: deciduous, mixed and permanent dentition; (3) INTERVENTION: 'Routine dental check': 'clinical examination, advice, charting (including monitoring of periodontal status) and report' as defined in the NHS Executive General Dental Service Statement of Dental Remuneration; (4) Comparator: no routine dental check or routine dental check(s) of different recall frequency; (5) PRIMARY OUTCOMES: caries, periodontal disease, quality of life, oral cancer.Results: Twenty eight studies were identified for the review. Studies were poorly reported and clinically heterogenous which restricted comparison between studies and limited generalisability to the UK situation. There was no consistency across multiple studies in the direction of effect of different dental check frequencies on measures of caries in deciduous mixed or permanent dentition, periodontal disease or oral cancer in permanent dentition. No studies were identified linking empirical measures of quality of life associated with oral health and dental check frequency.Conclusions: There is no existing high quality evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging six-monthly dental checks in adults and children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study reports on an investigation into clinical audit (CA) educational and service delivery outcomes in a dental foundation training (DFT) programme. The aim was to investigate CA teaching, learning and practice from the perspective of foundation dentists (FDs) and to record suggestions for improvement. A qualitative research methodology was used. Audio recordings of focus group interviews with FDs were triangulated by an interview with a group of training programme directors (TPDs). The interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed using a 'Framework' approach within Nvivo Data Analysis Software. FDs report considerable learning and behaviour change. However, TPDs have doubts about the long-term effects on service delivery. There can be substantial learning in the clinical, managerial, communication and professionalism domains, and in the development of time management, organisational and team-working skills. Information is provided about use of resources and interaction with teachers and colleagues. CA provides learning opportunities not produced by other educational activities including 'awkward conversations' with team-members in the context of change management and providing feedback. This is relevant when applying the recommendations of the Francis report. This paper should be useful to any dentist conducting audit or team training. Suggestions are made for improvements to resources and support including right touch intervention. Trainers should teach in the 'Goldilocks Zone'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]