Assessment of knowledge and competencies related to implant dentistry in undergraduate and postgraduate university education

Learning in academic settings is strongly related to the way the students are tested or examined. Assessment therefore must be integrated in the curriculum design, coordinated and should reflect the learning outcomes of the education. Assessment within the field of implant dentistry must fulfil four major objectives: complete and direct the learning process with feedback (formative), ensure that students are adequately prepared (summative), assess attitudes and skills such as critical thinking, reflection and self-assessment ability, and supply continuous feedback to teachers on curricular content and impact. Different assessment methods should be used to assess different levels of competencies throughout the curriculum. Various forms of written or oral assessment methodologies are applicable at earlier stages in the curriculum. At intermediate levels, interactive assessment methods, such as patient simulations (paper based or virtual) and more could encourage the necessary synthesis of several disciplines and aspects of the theoretical knowledge. At higher levels of competence, documentation of clinical proficiency by means of reflective portfolios and diaries is an appropriate assessment method with both formative and summative potential. The highest level of competence requires performance assessment using structured, objective, clinical criteria. The group strongly encourages the use of reflective forms of assessment methods which engage the students in a process of self-appraisal, identification of individual learning needs and self-directed learning. The ultimate goal of this would be to allow the student to develop a lifelong learning attitude. © 2009 Blackwell Munksgaard.link_to_subscribed_fulltex

The adaption and implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist for dental procedures

Objective: The objective of this study is to systematically adapt the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist for use in dentistry. Study design: Expert consensus panel. Setting, materials and methods: Using the 'WHO adaptation guidance', the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist was assessed and adapted by an expert panel using the Delphi technique. The newly developed checklist was piloted on a sample of 40 patients who were referred for the placement of dental implants at an implant referral centre. Results: The WHO Dental Safe Surgery Checklist was developed. Conclusions: This study presents an adaptation of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist for use in dentistry. The whole practice team needs to be trained on the use of the WHO checklist (as per the WHO implementation guidelines). It needs systematic implementation, for every episode of dental surgery including dental extractions, minor oral surgery (MOS) and implant surgery, as part of a culture that is centred around patient safety. If appropriately implemented, this checklist could be a valuable safety barrier to mitigate the potential consequences of human error