The Oral Surgery trainee perspective

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to gather information about Oral Surgery training programmes by carrying out a survey of the trainees currently in post. Materials and methods: A web-based questionnaire was sent to current Oral Surgery trainees. Questions about training environment, clinical exposure, examinations and future career aspirations were included. Results: Thirty of the 40 trainees contacted responded by part or fully completing the questionnaire. The mean time period of qualification from dental school to Oral Surgery training was 5.1 years. The majority, 80%, of trainees were on a 3-year full-time programme that entitled them to sit the Membership in Oral Surgery Examination (M Oral Surg) only. Four trainees who responded were eligible to sit both M Oral Surg and the Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Exam. Conclusions: The questionnaire highlighted areas Oral Surgery trainees perceived to be important for their training and development. Identification of these issues will allow attention to be focused in addressing them. Clinical relevance Scientific rationale for studyTo gain information about variations between Oral Surgery training programmes including whether trainees feel their clinical experience is sufficient and their views on their own career progression. Principal findingsThere is variation in the clinical and specifically implantology experience being gained by trainees in different training programmes. Practical implicationsWith some trainees feeling they lack clinical experience to make them competent in basic implantology, training developments should be focused towards addressing this concern. This will prevent trainees completing training with unacceptable levels of variation in their logbooks.

‘Where are they now’? A survey of former oral surgery trainees

“…This may be explained by the fact that our question was phrased specifically around achieved training competencies, rather than exposure. In our study, over half (55%) stated they had training in ‘advanced implantology and bone augmentation for oral rehabilitation’, which was similar to the findings by Patel and Ormondroyd, 18 suggesting that perhaps this competency should remain on any revised curriculum.…”

“…This also highlights inconsistencies in training delivery and variation both within and between deaneries and training centres. These figures were lower than that reported previously by Patel and Ormondroyd (2014), when they asked 40 oral surgery trainees about their exposure to various ‘extended competencies’ to the post‐CCST curriculum 18 . This may be explained by the fact that our question was phrased specifically around achieved training competencies, rather than exposure.…”