Background: Oral care is standard practice to prevent hospital-associated infections while patients are intubated and in the intensive care unit. Following extubation and transfer, infections remain an important risk for patients, but less attention is paid to oral care. Few studies have assessed the impact of oral care in recently extubated acutely ill patients.

This point/counterpoint article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of incorporating Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) into dental education, focusing on whether this relatively new educational modality could impact traditional dental curricula. Viewpoint 1 asserts that MOOCs can be useful in dental education because they offer an opportunity for students to learn through content and assessment that is delivered online. While specific research on MOOCs is limited, some evidence shows that online courses may produce similar learning outcomes to those in face-to-face courses. Given that MOOCs are intended to be open source, there could be opportunities for dental schools with faculty shortages and financial constraints to incorporate these courses into their curricula. In addition to saving money, dental schools could use MOOCs as revenue sources in areas such as continuing education. Viewpoint 2 argues that the hype over MOOCs is subsiding due in part to weaker than expected evidence about their value. Because direct contact between students, instructors, and patients is essential to the dental curriculum, MOOCs have yet to demonstrate their usefulness in replacing more than a subset of didactic courses. Additionally, learning professionalism, a key component of health professions education, is best supported by mentorship that provides significant interpersonal interaction. In spite of the potential of early MOOC ideology, MOOCs in their current form require either further development or altered expectations to significantly impact dental education.

Dental care in the U.S. is based on a general practice model of care delivery that can be enhanced by the integration of the dentists and allied dental professionals. There are 25 U.S. dental schools with associated dental hygiene programs, presenting distinctive opportunities for educating the dental health care team. Integrated educational clinical experiences are believed to positively influence teamwork and quality of care that parallels the authentic general practice environment. Lean management, developed by Toyota and used in a variety of types of organizations including health care, provides a distinctive blend of engineering principles and operations management to enhance business and operations processes. A fundamental principle of Lean management is the elimination of waste and preservation of only those value‐added components of a process. The faculty and staff of The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, trained in Lean process improvement, applied techniques to enhance and integrate an inefficient patient intake (admissions) process. The aim of this initiative was to improve patient throughput in the patient intake process and to provide dental and dental hygiene students with enhanced educational experiences from improved clinical integration. These goals were achieved through streamlining patient flow and relocating major phases of the process. Although new patient retention and cancellation/no‐show rates remained mostly unchanged, this enhancement project resulted in improved access to care, improved continuity of care, expanded scope of dental services offered, improved patient satisfaction, and enhanced dental and dental hygiene student collaboration and teamwork. These outcomes suggest that process improvement initiatives can serve as valuable opportunities for integration of the dental health care team.

No abstract

The current credentialing and privileging (C&P) climate has evolved due to a risk reduction/management awareness of increased institutional legal liability. This recognition affects dental colleges and has caused the implementation of C&P processes. Contemporary best practices for methods, processes, and structure are reported here. Data reported from the process show how and what clinicians’ red flags were discovered during the process. Conclusions include the following: C&P is a significant process to introduce in terms of institutional resources and commitment. This process includes increased clinician and administrative burden that needs to have a governor. Attention to experiences of other institutions can reduce but not eliminate challenges from the clinician and some administrators. A primary data‐based verification process administered by a credentialing specialist can make the process valid and workable.