Search

Objective: To develop assessment-of-clinical-exodontia-skills (ACES) rating scale for formative and summative assessment of undergraduate dental students performing exodontia., Place and Duration of Study: Faisalabad Medical University, Faisalabad, from May 2017 to February 2018., Methodology: A preliminary scale was developed using literature search and informal discussion with experts. In the first round of Delphi, this scale was emailed to oral surgery faculty across Pakistan. Their opinions were sought and the form was modified accordingly. In the second round, the modified form was emailed again to the respondents of first round and thus the form was finalized by obtaining their comments on the modified form., Results: A preliminary 27-point round-1 questionnaire was sent to 42 experts. Out of these, 30 responded (overall response rate 71.4%) and the form was modified according to their response. Frequency, percentage, and mean of Likertbased responses was calculated along with thematic analysis of individual responses. In round 2, the modified form was sent to the 30 respondents of round 1. Out of these, 21 replied (response rate 70%) and form was further modified accordingly. In round 2, primary focus was on marking/scoring strategy., Conclusion: ACES form was developed, which can be important tool in assessing exodontia skills of undergraduate dental students. This needs practical application and testing for validity.

Purpose: There are no universally accepted tools to evaluate operative skills of surgical residents in a timely fashion. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using a smartphone application, SIMPL (System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning), developed by a multi-institutional research collaborative, to achieve a high rate of timely operative evaluations and resident communication and to collect performance data. The authors hypothesized that these goals would be achieved because the process is convenient and efficient., Materials and Methods: This was a prospective feasibility and engagement study using SIMPL to evaluate residents' operative skills. SIMPL requires the attending surgeon to answer 3 multiple-choice questions: 1) What level of help (Zwisch Scale) was required by the trainee? 2) What was the level of performance? 3) How complex was the case? The evaluator also can dictate a narrative. The sample was composed of 3 faculty members and 3 volunteer senior residents. Predictor variables were the surgeons, trainees, and procedures performed. Outcome variables included number and percentage of procedures performed by faculty-and-resident pairs assessed, time required to complete assessments, time lapsed to submission, percentage of assessments with narratives, and residents' response rates., Results: From March through June 2016, 151 procedures were performed in the operating room by the faculty-and-resident teams. There were 107 assessments submitted (71%). Resident response (self-assessment) to faculty evaluations was 81%. Recorded time to complete assessments (n = 75 of 107) was shorter than 2 minutes. The time lapsed to submission was shorter than 72 hours (100%). Dictations were submitted for 35 evaluations (33%). Data for the type of help, performance, and complexity of cases were collected for each resident., Conclusions: SIMPL facilitates timely intraoperative evaluations of surgical skills, engagement by faculty and residents, and collection of detailed procedural data. Additional prospective trials to assess this tool further are planned., (Copyright © 2017 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Yearly surveys among the undergraduate students in oral and maxillofacial surgery at Karolinska Institutet have conveyed a wish for increased clinical training, and in particular, in surgical removal of mandibular third molars. Due to lack of resources, this kind of clinical supervision has so far not been possible to implement. One possible solution to this problem might be to introduce simulation into the curriculum. The purpose of this study was to investigate undergraduate students' perception of two different simulation methods for practicing clinical reasoning skills and technical skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery., Methods: Forty-seven students participating in the oral and maxillofacial surgery course at Karolinska Institutet during their final year were included. Three different oral surgery patient cases were created in a Virtual Patient (VP) Simulation system (Web-SP) and used for training clinical reasoning. A mandibular third molar surgery simulator with tactile feedback, providing hands on training in the bone removal and tooth sectioning in third molar surgery, was also tested. A seminar was performed using the combination of these two simulators where students' perception of the two different simulation methods was assessed by means of a questionnaire., Results: The response rate was 91.5% (43/47). The students were positive to the VP cases, although they rated their possible improvement of clinical reasoning skills as moderate. The students' perception of improved technical skills after training in the mandibular third molar surgery simulator was rated high. The majority of the students agreed that both simulation techniques should be included in the curriculum and strongly agreed that it was a good idea to use the two simulators in concert. The importance of feedback from the senior experts during simulator training was emphasised., Conclusions: The two tested simulation methods were well accepted and most students agreed that the future curriculum would benefit from permanent inclusion of these exercises, especially when used in combination. The results also stress the importance of teaching technical skills and clinical reasoning in concert.

Purpose: This study aimed to (1) compare 2 scales in the assessment of first-stage implant surgery, (2) assess the interrater reliability of these scales, and (3) compare self-assessment with observer assessment., Materials and Methods: Twenty-three patients underwent first-stage implant surgery. One assessor, an experienced dental surgeon, assisted and supervised the operator, while the second, a postgraduate trained in assessment, observed the procedure closely. The assessment scales consisted of a checklist and a global rating scale., Results: A significant correlation was found between the checklist and the global rating scale scores (r = 0.47, P = .002). The British Standards Reproducibility Coefficients were 2.5 (checklist) and 7.4 (global rating scale) for interrater reproducibility and 7.0 (checklist) and 12.6 (global rating scale) for self-assessment versus assessor reproducibility. Finally, analysis of the intraclass correlation coefficients between the assessors (0.74 and 0.64 for the checklist and the global rating scale, respectively) and between the surgeons' and trainers' scores (0.09 for the checklist and 0.18 for the global rating scale) showed a much weaker agreement for the latter., Discussion: There was good correlation between scores using the 2 different methods of assessment. The interrater reliability was substantial for both scales. However, training of assessors to ensure higher levels of interrater reliability may be necessary. These results also demonstrated the inability of some surgeons to assess their performance accurately., Conclusion: Both the checklist and the global rating scales provided useful assessment data, and both were considered of value by the assessors and surgeons in providing feedback. The development of assessment and self-assessment skills in implant surgery is necessary if we are to establish a culture of commitment to lifelong learning.

Differences are examined in assessment and self-assessment scores, in oral and maxillofacial surgery trainees and MSc postgraduates, following the surgical removal of lower third molar teeth. This study found evidence of a surprising and worrying over-rating of their own surgical skills by many trainees and postgraduates.

The growing demand for assessment in all aspects of surgical competencies will inevitably embrace the whole of dental surgery. The aim of this paper is to review the literature and discuss some of the issues that will have to be addressed as objective assessment of the surgical dentists' skills is introduced. The paper reviews what is meant by competence and how we assess it, with particular emphasis on practical and technical skills. Specific methodologies for assessing competence are described including, as illustrations, two means of assessing the removal of lower wisdom teeth. The evaluation of competence in the workplace is discussed together with the difficulty in assessing important attributes such as attitude. It concludes that the assessment of competence is a valuable tool in its own right and a means of demonstrating to the public the continuing commitment of the profession to the highest possible standards. However assessment will be very time consuming and to be worth while we must ensure that it is done in a way that produces clear and unambiguous benefits and solves real problems.