Analyzing Dental Students’ Clinic Production Using Time‐Based Relative Value Units: Ten‐Year Cross‐Cohort Mapping

Abstract

The analysis of dental students' clinical production/participation has been used to assess whether a prospective graduate is capable of unsupervised and independent practice (that is, competent to perform that practice). This method and others have inherent biases that may not accurately reflect whether the student has mastered the associated concepts and techniques required for dentistry. The aim of this study was to assess an informatics system that assigned curriculum meta-tags with time-based relative educational value units (ReVUs) to each clinical procedure performed by Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) students. The system has been used since 1998, but for this study the complete data sets for the MUSC graduating classes of 2007 through 2016 were mapped using microcompetency codes for the dental procedures. In total, 421,494 procedures were formatted and analyzed using software developed to aggregate disparate data sets from clinical activities into a common format for evaluation. The results showed that the ten classes (cohorts) were very consistent with cohort high ReVUs averaging 7,317.1 points, cohort mean ReVUs being 5,180.2 points, and cohort low ReVUs averaging 3,381 points. A detailed analysis of student effort by dental subspecialty found that preventive activities represented 13.4%, patient assessment 32.6%, periodontology 2.8%, restorative dentistry 16.3%, prosthodontics 21.9%, endodontics 6.7%, and oral surgery 5.7% of the total points in the clinical part of the curriculum. In this system, point thresholds can be easily generated to monitor students' progress towards competence for each defined competency and thus assess their progress towards acquiring the skills required for unsupervised, independent practice.

Development of a novel integrated educational relative‐unit value system to assess dental students' clinical performance

“…The development processes of identified systems were evaluated in light of Kane's views of validity 21 . Of these, 3 studies used insurance‐based RUVs to measure students’ performance, 1,16,17 and 5 described systems that were specifically developed for the educational setting 5–7,18,19 . Alignment between the purpose of developing the RUV system and the purpose it was used for, was noted in 2 of the 8 systems 6,7 .…”

“…Of these, 3 studies used insurance‐based RUVs to measure students’ performance, 1,16,17 and 5 described systems that were specifically developed for the educational setting 5–7,18,19 . Alignment between the purpose of developing the RUV system and the purpose it was used for, was noted in 2 of the 8 systems 6,7 . Explanation of the basis of calculation of the basic RUV, using a rule of thumb was provided by 3 systems 6,7,19 .…”

“…Alignment between the purpose of developing the RUV system and the purpose it was used for, was noted in 2 of the 8 systems 6,7 . Explanation of the basis of calculation of the basic RUV, using a rule of thumb was provided by 3 systems 6,7,19 . However, justification of the basis of calculation was provided by 1 study only 7 .…”

“…In fact, some schools have used RUVs to set targets for desired checkpoints, including graduation. These are becoming popular with students and faculty, because of the flexibility they offer in helping students meeting requirements and, hence, reducing their anxiety 6,7 …”

“…Some of these practice‐based RUVs have been used by dental educators to assess dental students’ clinical productivity in the educational settings 1,16,17 . Since these systems were not originally developed for use in education, several educational RUVs were developed 5–7,18,19 . A timeline of the usage of RUVs in dentistry is summarized in Figure 1.…”