No abstract

In the ever-changing landscape of education, health professions programs must be adaptable and forward-thinking. Programs need to understand the services students should be educated to provide over the next 25 years. The movement to increase collaboration among health professionals to improve health care outcomes is a significant priority for all health professions. Complex medical issues frequently seen in patients can best be addressed with interprofessional health care teams. Training future health care providers to work in such teams facilitates collaborative care and can result in improved outcomes for patients. What skills will dental students need in 2040 to practice as part of these interprofessional teams? Important skills needed for success are collaboration, communication, professionalism, and the ability to manage medically complex patients. These abilities are in alignment with the four Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) core competency domains and will continue to be key skills necessary in the future. Transitioning to a one university approach for preclinical and clinical training along with development of an all-inclusive electronic health record will drive this model forward. Faculty training and continuing education for clinicians, residents, and allied health providers will be necessary for comprehensive adoption of a team-based collaborative care system. With the health care delivery system moving towards more patient-centered, team-based care, interprofessional education helps future clinicians develop into confident team members who will lead health care into the future and produce better patient outcomes. This article was written as part of the project "Advancing Dental Education in the 21 Century."

BackgroundHuman papillomaviruses (HPVs) remain a serious world health problem due to their association with anogenital/oral cancers and warts. While over 100 HPV types have been identified, a subset is associated with malignancy. HPV16 and 18 are the most prevalent oncogenic types, while HPV6 and 11 are most commonly responsible for anogenital warts. While other quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays detect oncogenic HPV, there is no single tube assay distinguishing the most frequent oncogenic types and the most common types found in warts.ResultsA Sybr Green-based qPCR assay was developed utilizing degenerate primers to the highly conserved HPV E1 theoretically detecting any HPV type. A single tube multiplex qPCR assay was also developed using type-specific primer pairs and TaqMan probes that allowed for detection and quantitation of HPV6,11,16,18. Each HPV type was detected over a range from 2 × 101 to 2 × 106copies/reaction providing a reliable method of quantitating type-specific HPV in 140 anogenital/cutaneous/oral benign and malignant specimens. 35 oncogenic and low risk alpha genus HPV types were detected. Concordance was detected in previously typed specimens. Comparisons to the gold standard detected an overall sensitivity of 89% (95% CI: 77% - 96%) and specificity of 90% (95%CI: 52% - 98%).ConclusionThere was good agreement between the ability of the qPCR assays described here to identify HPV types in malignancies previously typed using standard methods. These novel qPCR assays will allow rapid detection and quantitation of HPVs to assess their role in viral pathogenesis.

Although reviewing dental students' clinical competency assessments is an important aspect of instruction, finding time to give individual feedback to each student poses a challenge for faculty members, and some students may prefer to receive feedback from a peer. The aim of this study was to explore dental students' perceived value of feedback on their performance in a simulated patient care activity from either a faculty member or a peer. Participants were third‐ and fourth‐year dental students who had completed two years of interprofessional instruction and a videotaped objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) with standardized patients. Participants in two cohorts were randomly assigned to a faculty or peer feedback group. Cohort one (2015‐16) consisted of 66 students: 21 in faculty‐led groups, and 45 in peer‐led groups. Cohort two (2017) consisted of 60 students: 17 in faculty‐led groups, and 43 in peer‐led groups. In both types of pairings, the protocol consisted of jointly observing a video recording of student performance in the simulated patient encounter and discussing questions about the student's performance in non‐technical competencies such as communication, patient safety, scope of practice, and conflict resolution. For cohort two, prior to the feedback sessions, students in the peer feedback groups received a 60‐minute training on providing constructive feedback. All 126 students in the two cohorts completed an evaluation questionnaire after the experience. The results showed that students in both types of feedback sessions perceived value in the feedback and believed it enhanced their skills. However, students rated faculty feedback significantly higher (p<0.05) than peer feedback on nearly all dimensions. Perceived value did not differ by age, gender, class year, or OSCE performance. These results provide support for the value of peer feedback on nontechnical clinical competency assessments, though not as a substitute for faculty feedback.