Dental Students' Clinical Experience Across Three Successive Curricula at One U.S. Dental School.

As dental schools continue to seek the most effective ways to provide clinical education for students, it is important to track the effects innovations have on students' clinical experience to allow for quantitative comparisons of various curricula. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of three successive clinical curricula on students' experience at one U.S. dental school. The three were a discipline-based curriculum (DBC), a comprehensive care curriculum (CCC), and a procedural requirement curriculum plus externships (PRCE). Students' clinic experience data from 1992 to 2013 were analyzed for total experience and in five discipline areas. Clinic experience metrics analyzed were patient visits (PVs), relative value units (RVUs), and equivalent amounts (EQAs). A minimum experience threshold (MET) and a high experience threshold (HET) were set at one standard deviation above and below the mean for the DBC years. Students below the MET were designated as low achievers; students above the HET were designated as high achievers. The results showed significant differences among the three curricula in almost all areas of comparison: total PVs, total EQAs, total RVUs, RVUs by discipline, and number of high and low achievers in total clinical experience and by discipline. The comprehensive care approach to clinical education did not negatively impact students' clinical experience and in many cases enhanced it. The addition of externships also enhanced student total clinical experience although more study is needed to determine their effectiveness. The insights provided by this study suggest that the methodology used including the metrics of PVs, EQAs, and RVUs may be helpful for other dental schools in assessing students' clinical experience

The dangers of dental devices as reported in the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database.

BackgroundThe authors conducted a study to determine the frequency and type of adverse events (AEs) associated with dental devices reported to the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database.MethodsThe authors downloaded and reviewed the dental device-related AEs reported to MAUDE from January 1, 1996, through December 31,2011.ResultsMAUDE received a total of 1,978,056 reports between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2011. Among these reports, 28,046 (1.4%) AE reports were associated with dental devices. Within the dental AE reports that had event type information, 17,261 reported injuries, 7,777 reported device malfunctions, and 66 reported deaths. Among the 66 entries classified as death reports, 52 reported a death in the description; the remaining were either misclassified or lacked sufficient information in the report to determine whether a death had occurred. Of the dental device-associated AEs, 53.5% pertained to endosseous implants.ConclusionsA plethora of devices are used in dental care. To achieve Element 1 of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Initiative, clinicians and researchers must be able to monitor the safety of dental devices. Although MAUDE was identified by the authors as essentially the sole source of this valuable information on adverse events, their investigations led them to conclude that MAUDE had substantial limitations that prevent it from being the broad-based patient safety sentinel the profession requires.Practical implicationsAs potential contributors to MAUDE, dental care teams play a key role in improving the profession's access to information about the safety of dental devices

Developing and Testing Electronic Health Record-Derived Caries Indices.

Caries indices, the basis of epidemiologic caries measures, are not easily obtained in clinical settings. This study's objective was to design, test, and validate an automated program (Valid Electronic Health Record Dental Caries Indices Calculator Tool [VERDICT]) to calculate caries indices from an electronic health record (EHR). Synthetic use case scenarios and actual patient cases of primary, mixed, and permanent dentition, including decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT/dmft) and tooth surfaces (DMFS/dmfs) were entered into the EHR. VERDICT measures were compared to a previously validated clinical electronic data capture (EDC) system and statistical program to calculate caries indices. Four university clinician-researchers abstracted EHR caries exam data for 45 synthetic use cases into the EDC and post-processed with SAS software creating a gold standard to compare the -VERDICT-derived caries indices. Then, 2 senior researchers abstracted EHR caries exam data and calculated caries indices for 24 patients, allowing further comparisons to VERDICT indices. Agreement statistics were computed among abstractors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Agreement statistics between the 2 final-phase abstractors and the VERDICT measures showed extremely high concordance: Lin's concordance coefficients (LCCs) >0.99 for dmfs, dmft, DS, ds, DT, dt, ms, mt, FS, fs, FT, and ft; LCCs >0.95 for DMFS and DMFT; and LCCs of 0.92-0.93 for MS and MT. Caries indices, essential to developing primary health outcome measures for research, can be reliably derived from an EHR using VERDICT. Using these indices will enable population oral health management approaches and inform quality improvement efforts

Are three methods better than one? A comparative assessment of usability evaluation methods in an EHR

Objective: To comparatively evaluate the effectiveness of three different methods involving end-users for detecting usability problems in an EHR: user testing, semi-structured interviews and surveys. Materials and methods: Data were collected at two major urban dental schools from faculty, residents and dental students to assess the usability of a dental EHR for developing a treatment plan. These included user testing (N= 32), semi-structured interviews (N= 36), and surveys (N= 35). Results: The three methods together identified a total of 187 usability violations: 54% via user testing, 28% via the semi-structured interview and 18% from the survey method, with modest overlap. These usability problems were classified into 24 problem themes in 3 broad categories. User testing covered the broadest range of themes (83%), followed by the interview (63%) and survey (29%) methods. Discussion: Multiple evaluation methods provide a comprehensive approach to identifying EHR usability challenges and specific problems. The three methods were found to be complementary, and thus each can provide unique insights for software enhancement. Interview and survey methods were found not to be sufficient by themselves, but when used in conjunction with the user testing method, they provided a comprehensive evaluation of the EHR. Conclusion: We recommend using a multi-method approach when testing the usability of health information technology because it provides a more comprehensive picture of usability challenges

Detection and characterization of usability problems in structured data entry interfaces in dentistry

BACKGROUND: Poor usability is one of the major barriers for optimally using electronic health records (EHRs). Dentists are increasingly adopting EHRs, and are using structured data entry interfaces to enter data such that the data can be easily retrieved and exchanged. Until recently, dentists have lacked a standardized terminology to consistently represent oral health diagnoses. OBJECTIVES: In this study we evaluated the usability of a widely used EHR interface that allow the entry of diagnostic terms, using multi-faceted methods to identify problems and work with the vendor to correct them using an iterative design method. METHODS: Fieldwork was undertaken at two clinical sites, and dental students as subjects participated in user testing (n=32), interviews (n=36) and observations (n=24). RESULTS: User testing revealed that only 22–41% of users were able to successfully complete a simple task of entering one diagnosis, while no user was able to complete a more complex task. We identified and characterized 24 high-level usability problems reducing efficiency and causing user errors. Interface-related problems included unexpected approaches for displaying diagnosis, lack of visibility, and inconsistent use of UI widgets. Terminology related issues included missing and mis-categorized concepts. Work domain issues involved both absent and superfluous functions. In collaboration with the vendor, each usability problem was prioritized and a timeline set to resolve the concerns. DISCUSSION: Mixed methods evaluations identified a number of critical usability issues relating to the user interface, underlying terminology of the work domain. The usability challenges were found to prevent most users from successfully completing the tasks. Our further work we will determine if changes to the interface, terminology and work domain do result in improved usability