I note with interest the article published
online today in the BDJ education section.
Education
British Dental Journal 218, 351 - 354 (2015)
Published online: 27 March 2015 | doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.198
A study of dental students' clinical knowledge acquisition and experiences in conscious sedation
K. J. Scally1, K. E. Wilson2 & N. M. Girdler3
• Describes a pilot study which provides an insight into students'
experiences in intravenous sedation during a clinical attachment.
• Explains that the novel use of a pre- and post-clinical attachment
knowledge test demonstrated higher results after the attachment.
• Provides student feedback on teaching, clinical support and gaining
hands on experience was rated highly.
Abstract
Aim
To evaluate final year dental students'
knowledge acquisition and experiences during their intravenous sedation (IVS)
clinical attachment within the sedation department at Newcastle School of
Dental Sciences (NSDS).
Methods
Students attending IVS clinical attachments
in the period September 2012 – April 2013 completed a novel clinical knowledge
test at the beginning and end of their one week attachment; a feedback
questionnaire was also completed.
Results
A total of 70 students attended the
attachment. Clinical knowledge tests were completed by 71.4% (n = 50) of
students. The average test result improved from 75.1% in the pre-attachment
test to 92.1% in the post-attachment test. Feedback questionnaires were
returned by 65.7% (n = 46) of students. All students attained clinical
experience of administering sedation and treating sedated patients. 'Teaching
and Clinical Support' was rated highest, with 97.8% (n = 45) rating it as
excellent. Students commented that hands-on clinical experience and clinical
teaching were the most valuable parts of the attachment. Patients failing to
attend appointments were considered the least useful part of the attachment.
Conclusion
This pilot study provides an insight into
undergraduate clinical sedation, which is often under reported in the
literature. The clinical experience gained at NSDS exceeds GDC recommendations
for undergraduate sedation. The clinical knowledge test results suggest that
clinical knowledge may be better retained after direct clinical experience.
My comments:
I will preface my comments by stating that as I write,
Firstly I am GDC registered GDP, although recently retired as a wet-fingered dentist, I continue to teach, lecture and mentor dental professionals, as well as provide visiting sedation services for Inhalation Sedation. I appear on the SAAD and DSTG list of mentors.
Secondly I am proud to have been a life-long wet-fingered dentist and have no academic pedigree.
Thirdly this study was authored by acknowledged experts in the field of dental conscious sedation and from a dental school with a history of high reputation in this field. Anecdotally, in the past at least, one of the leading lights in dental undergraduate conscious sedation training.
Having said that I will now don my pedants hat.
Since the study did not seek to include other techniques that fall within the variously ascribed, Level One or Tier One sedation techniques, namely Inhalation Sedation (with Oxygen and nitrous Oxide, Oral Sedation or intranasal sedation) it ought to have been entitled:
A study of dental students' clinical knowledge acquisition and experiences in intra-venous sedation
The study is effectively an internal audit in the Newcastle Dental School's relevant department. As a pilot, the implication is that the methodology could/will be rolled out to all dental schools in future.
Now although the performance and effectiveness of each UK dental school in it's teaching methods is certainly of great interest and of paramount importance to those involved, it cannot be overlooked that a growing number of overseas trained dentists are now working in the UK with, no doubt, huge variation in their experiences in conscious sedation. Indeed my own experience
(unpublished) bears this out over the last 11 years.
Given the greater proportion of the population receive their treatment in primary care services, whether within the NHS or on a private basis, it would seem that an important, one might argue, a more important study would be to sample perhaps 500 practitioners working around the UK and N.I. in primary care services to ascertain the need for training amongst this group.
As a final comment, a 65.7% feedback return rate seems somewhat low to me given the captive nature of the student's involved and perhaps too low for any conclusions to be drawn.
The result that : 'Teaching and Clinical Support' was rated highest, with 97.8% (n = 45) rating it as excellent" is impressive, even if it could only be derived from the 65.7% of returned questionnaires. I am not sure whether statistically one can extrapolate that finding to the whole cohort studied automatically. Then again I am only a GDP.
Richard Charon BDS
2 comments:
yes this article is all a bit self - congratulatory !
Pretty much how it seemed to me to be honest JennyP.
Post a Comment