Patients response using freetext in the University of Washington Quality of Life Scale

Background. The University of Washington Quality of Life Scale is the only validated head-and-neck-specific questionnaire that invites patients to write comments in the form of freetext. Freetext allows the questionnaire to record issues raised by the patient.Method. Two hundred seventy-eight consecutive patients treated between 1995 and 1999 by primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma completed the UWQOL. Freetext from these patients was independently assessed by the authors.Results. Comments were made by 61% of patients at some time. Completion was independent of clinicodemographic characteristics. Comments were predominantly head and neck (39%) and medical (35%). In 55% of cases, the overall tone was negative. Around a quarter of issues was not part of a validated health-related quality-of-life questionnaire.Conclusions. Freetext gives the multidisciplinary team a better insight into the concerns of the patient and can be used to promote a holistic approach. (C) 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</p

A generic consensus assessment of undergraduate competence in forceps exodontia in the United Kingdom

The assessment of competence in clinical skills has become more frequent in published healthcare curricula and syllabuses recently. There are agreed mechanisms for the assessment of competence in the post-graduate environment, but no consensus within the undergraduate curriculum. This paper seeks to develop an agreed generic checklist for the assessment of competence in forceps exodontia.Materials and methods: A modified Delphi process was undertaken with representatives from all UK dental schools (n = 13) to develop a generic checklist for the assessment of competence in forceps exodontia. A content analysis of the assessments employed by each school was used to help discussion and inform the Delphi process.Results: Seven schools currently employ a summative assessment of competence in forceps exodontia, with the majority employing a structured clinical objective test (n = 6). From the seven assessments, there were a total of 29 putative items and 10 putative domains identified for a generic checklist. These were reduced to five domains and 19 items through the content analysis and Delphi process, and a generic overarching checklist was created.Conclusion: Using this generic checklist, it may now be possible to pool data inter-institution to perform more powerful analyses on how our students obtain, or fail to obtain competence in forceps exodontia. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S

UK national curriculum for undergraduate oral surgery subgroup for teaching of the Association of British Academic Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

This article describes a curriculum in oral surgery for undergraduate dental education in the United Kingdom prepared by the Education Subgroup of The British Academic Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. This group is made up of representatives from each of the 13 UK Dental Schools, one Irish Dental School and one Post-graduate Institute. The document represents a group consensus of an undergraduate UK oral surgery curriculum that is founded on the frameworks outlined by the General Dental Council, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and the Association for Dental Education in Europe. Our curriculum document is more prescriptive than the information available in the aforementioned documents. It is based on UK undergraduate oral surgery experience and thus attempts to set achievable core competencies and, in a few areas, challenges the available curriculum and related documentation. © 2008 Blackwell Munksgaard.Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

UK national curriculum for undergraduate oral surgery subgroup for teaching of the Association of British Academic Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

This article describes a curriculum in oral surgery for undergraduate dental education in the United Kingdom prepared by the Education Subgroup of The British Academic Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. This group is made up of representatives from each of the 13 UK Dental Schools, one Irish Dental School and one Post-graduate Institute. The document represents a group consensus of an undergraduate UK oral surgery curriculum that is founded on the frameworks outlined by the General Dental Council, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and the Association for Dental Education in Europe. Our curriculum document is more prescriptive than the information available in the aforementioned documents. It is based on UK undergraduate oral surgery experience and thus attempts to set achievable core competencies and, in a few areas, challenges the available curriculum and related documentation