Perspectives of staff on student outreach placements.
ABSTRACT To explore the perspectives of placement staff on outreach training.
Block clinical placements in primary care settings for dental undergraduates and hygiene and therapy students.
After completion of the placements, 32 participating staff across nine primary care locations took part in qualitative interviews and focus groups. The staff provided data on placement organisation, the students' development and their supervision, and any effects on themselves as hosts.
The major themes included the learning environment, supervision and communication. The staff saw benefits to students in working in a smaller primary care clinic with nursing support and immediately available supervision by a dental generalist. Other benefits included increased confidence, broader clinical experience and applying theoretical learning to new communities. Effective communication and adequate resourcing were critical success factors. There was some disruption of clinics' normal working, but many unanticipated benefits. Staff supported the outreach placements in primary care settings to enhance students' dental education.
These findings provide a planning and evaluation framework for dental educators involved in outreach.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study aimed to determine dental students' expectations of attending a community clinic to provide family dental care and to assess how well the course met their expectations. Prior to the start of the course, 30 final year students were asked about the type and number of patients they expected to treat, the types of treatment they thought they would provide and additional skills, if any, they might gain and also about any worries they had about the course. The responses were used to compile a questionnaire, completed by the students after finishing the course. The students treated more patients a day than expected and underestimated the range of treatments carried out at the clinics, particularly trauma and advanced restorative work. Additional communication skills and increased confidence and quality of work were among the cited gains. Concerns expressed prior to the course had largely been eliminated, although some students still had reservations about National Health Service paperwork, treatment planning and running late. It was concluded that The Family Dentistry Course more than fulfilled students' expectations and it gave them enhanced skills in patient management and clinical competency.European Journal Of Dental Education 03/2002; 6(1):40-4. · 1.01 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A pilot outreach course in restorative dentistry based in community clinics began in 2001. As part of the evaluation, 48 fourth year students completed a questionnaire about their opinions of the new course, and about restorative dentistry clinics in the dental hospital. Time management was the most frequently mentioned gain from outreach. In relation to the dental school, students most often saw the specialised teaching staff as a gain. Outreach was equally or more important for students' confidence in clinical diagnosis of dental caries, treatment planning, direct restorations, communicating with patients, and managing patients, time, and resources. The dental hospital was equally or more important for their confidence in the diagnosis of periodontal disease, root planing, crowns, bridges, dentures, and communicating effectively with laboratory staff. Patients in outreach were seen as different from those at the dental hospital because they were unselected, and had different treatment needs. Meeting course requirements was the most frequent concern about outreach. In relation to the dental hospital, students were most often concerned about the quality of teaching and support available. Outreach and the dental hospital provided complementary experiences and the new course met its educational objectives.British dental journal 03/2005; 198(4):233-7. · 0.81 Impact Factor
- The Medical journal of Australia 03/1993; 158(4):280-2. · 2.85 Impact Factor