Synchronous Gastric Tumours: Two Different Cases

Continuous professional development (CPD) in Periodontology refers to the overall framework of opportunities that facilitate a life-long learning practice, driven by the learner-practitioner and supported by a variety of institutions and individuals. CPD must address different needs for a great diversity of practitioners. It is clear that no particular methodology or technology is able to successfully accommodate the entire spectrum of CPD in Periodontology. Course designers must choose from and combine a wide array of methodologies and technologies, depending upon the needs of the learners and the objectives of the intended education. Research suggests that ‘interactivity’, ‘flexibility’, ‘continuity’ and ‘relevance to learners’ practice’ are major characteristics of successful CPD. Various methods of mentoring, peer-learning environments and work-based learning have been combined with reflective practice and self-study to form the methodological backbone of CPD courses. Blended learning encompasses a wide array of technologies and methodologies and has been successfully used in CPD courses. Internet-based content learning management systems, portable Internet devices, powerful databases and search engines, together with initiatives such as ‘open access’ and ‘open courseware’ provide an array of effective instructional and communication tools. Assessment remains a key issue in CPD, providing learners with valuable feedback and it ensures the credibility and effectiveness of the learning process. Assessment is a multi-level process using different methods for different learning outcomes, as directed by current evidence and best practices. Finally, quality assurance of the education provided must follow CPD courses at all times through a structured and credible process

Validity of scores from communication skills instruments for patients and their dental student-clinicians

The development of appropriate communication skills by healthcare providers is central to providing quality patient-centred care. Patients can provide valuable feedback to practitioners about their clinical communication. However, in oral health care, their involvement is uncommon and instruments specific for communication in oral health care have not been available. Recently, two complementary instruments have been developed by the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Manitoba for evaluating student-clinicians' clinical communication: one for patient evaluation and one for student self-evaluation. The aim of the current study was to provide validity evidence for the scores related to the internal structure of the revised 2007 versions of these instruments in two dental clinical/education contexts, namely the Universities of Manitoba, Canada (UM) and Adelaide, Australia (UA). The proposed factor structure and loadings, and their stability across contexts were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the adequacy of the internal consistency reliability of the scores was analysed using Cronbach's alpha. The factor structure of the current 2007 versions of the patient and student instruments, derived from the previously developed longer versions of these instruments, was confirmed and was consistent across the two clinical/educational contexts. A model of partial invariance provided the best fit for these data due to variations in the magnitude of the factor loadings between sites. The internal consistency reliability of scores was high with a range of 0.88–0.97. In conclusion, the current study provides preliminary evidence regarding the validity of the scores of the current 2007 instruments, in terms of the internal structure, as measuring the five factors well. Replication of the factor structure of these instrument scores with more participants at both UA and other institutions is required.T. A. Winning, A. Kinnell, M. E. Wener, N. Mazurat and D. J Schönwette