Measuring Clinical Productivity in Community‐Based Dental Education Programs

Academic dental institutions serve a foundational role in meeting the oral health needs of Americans through community‐based learning experiences. Purpose The purpose of this study was to longitudinally evaluate an ongoing primary objective of the Oral Health Improvement through Outreach (OHIO) Project Program, which is to build strong partnerships between The Ohio State University (OSU) College of Dentistry (CoD) and community‐based dental facilities and increase access to dental care for underserved populations. Methods Upon exempt Institutional Review Board approval (2004H0067), a longitudinal evaluation study was conducted of 15 years of the OHIO Project during the 2004–2019 academic years. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the OHIO Project using process and outcome evaluation methods. Results The data from 107,510 patients were analyzed. Process evaluation revealed the OHIO Project has been reaching the target population of communities with dental care needs and limited access, as evidenced by the main methods of patient payment/non‐payment and the quantity of completed restorative/oral surgery procedures. Outcome evaluation revealed the OHIO Project has been building strong partnerships between the CoD and communities to address dental care needs and improve access, as evidenced by the increased number and distribution of the community‐based facilities throughout Ohio. Conclusion Process and outcome evaluation revealed the OHIO Project has been meeting its primary goal of building strong partnerships between the CoD and OHIO Project community‐based facilities to address the basic dental needs and increase access for Ohio residents. Future research is needed to evaluate the dental student impact of providing community‐based care.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Process and outcome evaluation of the Oral Health Improvement through Outreach (OHIO) Project

Partido

Bean

Hicks

2020

“…Like many U.S. dental schools over the last 25 years, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Dentistry has employed various clinical curricula to ensure students obtain adequate clinical experience and attain required competencies for graduation. Dental schools have introduced such innovative curriculum and assessment formats as comprehensive care, 1 – 6 case completion, 7 , 8 competency examinations, 9 – 12 portfolios, 13 , 14 and community‐based, off‐campus externships 15 – 17 . UCSF has had three major clinical curricular changes since 1992, moving from a discipline‐based curriculum to a comprehensive care curriculum to a procedural requirement curriculum plus externships.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Students’ Clinical Experience Across Three Successive Curricula at One U.S. Dental School

White

Jenson

Gansky

et al. 2017

As dental schools continue to seek the most effective ways to provide clinical education for students, it is important to track the effects innovations have on students’ clinical experience to allow for quantitative comparisons of various curricula. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of three successive clinical curricula on students’ experience at one U.S. dental school. The three were a discipline‐based curriculum (DBC), a comprehensive care curriculum (CCC), and a procedural requirement curriculum plus externships (PRCE). Students’ clinic experience data from 1992 to 2013 were analyzed for total experience and in five discipline areas. Clinic experience metrics analyzed were patient visits (PVs), relative value units (RVUs), and equivalent amounts (EQAs). A minimum experience threshold (MET) and a high experience threshold (HET) were set at one standard deviation above and below the mean for the DBC years. Students below the MET were designated as low achievers; students above the HET were designated as high achievers. The results showed significant differences among the three curricula in almost all areas of comparison: total PVs, total EQAs, total RVUs, RVUs by discipline, and number of high and low achievers in total clinical experience and by discipline. The comprehensive care approach to clinical education did not negatively impact students’ clinical experience and in many cases enhanced it. The addition of externships also enhanced student total clinical experience although more study is needed to determine their effectiveness. The insights provided by this study suggest that the methodology used including the metrics of PVs, EQAs, and RVUs may be helpful for other dental schools in assessing students’ clinical experience.

“…Four studies compared student productivity in community settings to that in dental school clinics, 14 – 17 and five studies compared productivity in a dental school across a number of years 14 , 15 , 18 – 20 . Three studies compared productivity across different populations and/or community sites 16 – 18 and two studies across rotations 21 , 22 . A sole study included a review of dentists’ self‐reported data about the non‐clinical information they solicited from older patients and their exposure to this population in dental school 23 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Dental Students’ Readiness to Treat Populations That Are Underserved: A Scoping Review

Furlini

Noushi

Castonguay

et al. 2018

In North America, all dental schools have adopted some form of community-based dental education (CBDE) or service-learning, but little is known about the areas being researched and reported in published studies. The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review to determine what areas of research had been conducted to determine the effects of CBDE on dental students' readiness to treat populations that are underserved. A systematic search of articles published in English or French since 2000 was performed on July 29, 2015, and combined quantitative and qualitative synthesis of data was conducted. Of the 32 studies evaluated, 23 (72%) were quantitative, seven (22%) were qualitative, and two were multi-method. The majority (66%) used self-report methods, most frequently surveys. Participants in 50% of the studies were fourth-year dental students; the others assessed third- and fourth-year (13%), first- and second-year (6%), and first-year (13%) students. Dentists were the participants in three studies (9%), with dentists and students in one study (3%). Either the types of populations receiving care were unspecified or four or more groups were pooled together in 25 studies (78%), while two focused on children, one on rural populations, one on elderly populations, two on persons with special health care needs, and one on low-income populations. The study areas were wide-ranging, but generally fell into three categories: student performance (37.5%), teaching approaches and evaluation methods (37.5%), and perceptions of CBDE (25%). This review identified many research gaps for determining whether students are prepared to treat populations that are underserved. The disparate nature of CBDE research demonstrates a compelling argument for determining elements that define student readiness to care for patients who are underserved and for research that includes the voices of patients, curriculum development, and more comprehensive and rigorous evaluation methodologies.