A tool for incorporating interprofessional perspectives into dental students decision‐making: A 2‐year follow‐up on this learning outcome

Abstract

Objectives: To analyze student performance when using a sustainable teaching tool developed to guide learning toward interprofessional perspectives.Methods: This study compiled data about D4 students' performance when using an interprofessional education (IPE) teaching tool reported previously in this journal, during their 5-week Geriatric and Special Needs Program rotation in the academic years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. Ninety-two students were introduced to IPE concepts and teaching tools during their orientation. Students were then asked a question regarding the perspective of each healthcare team member and whether they would contact these healthcare team members for collaboration during the provision of oral care with regard to various patient cases. Students were scored on whether they answered the question about the perspective of each health care team member. The same two independent evaluators also noted whether the student thought each member of the health care team should be contacted.Results: A majority (90.2%-95.7%) of dental students applied their knowledge to questions regarding each health care team member's perspectives. The profession that dental students most often indicated they wished to contact for collaboration was primary care providers (n = 70; 76.1%), followed by family caregivers (n = 54; 58.7%), and pharmacists (n = 46; 50.0%). The results of the interrater agreement between the two-faculty scoring students were between 86.7% and 100%. Conclusions:The teaching tool is sustainable and succinct. Students considered the perspectives of each health care team member at a rate above 90%, and the interrater agreement was high among the faculty evaluators. Students considered contacting primary care providers, family caregivers, and pharmacists more often than the other health care team members. We see this model as one approach to begin the articulation of learning outcomes for IPP.

Critical thinking: Inquiring culture, learning outcomes examples, a call for learning models, and outcomes

“…Using this concept, learning outcomes and assessments have been developed for several aspects of patient care the dentist uses daily, even hourly: treatment planning, caries risk assessment, geriatric risk assessment, technology decision-making, literature search and critique, behavior management, case presentation, interprofessional practice, ethics, social work, evidence-based dentistry, and conceptualizing a patient interaction. [5][6][7][8][9][10] All are skillsets the master clinician uses on a daily, even hourly basis. Each has been peer reviewed and appears in the literature.…”

How can dental research deliver better outcomes to frail older adults? Essay on considerations

“…The practitioner performance guides have two main components: (1) Assess basic risk as both a one‐time risk—a snapshot—and the state of disease progression—a moving picture; (2) incorporate the thinking of the members of the health care team involved in the person's care– a component of IPP; and (3) incorporate the latest research using principles of Evidence‐Based Dentistry (EBD). A small and growing literature exists on practitioner guidance for risk assessment to include the thinking of the health team, and the incorporation of pertinent science for the next patient 7,8 …”

“…A central premise in approaching the most vulnerable aging population from the perspectives of research, clinical protocols, and education is the paradigm shift from managing the teeth to managing the person. Part of the dynamic is assessing the patient's capacity to subscribe to recommended treatments 7,8 . Part of the dynamic is also to assess the practitioner's capacity and limitations to engage the patient and their surrounding environment, including but not limited to family, other health care team members, and caregivers.…”

“…One performance/learning outcome is to incorporate the thinking of core members of the health team with every patient. To that end, practitioners deemed as “experts” were asked, “What do you want every member of the health care team to ask every patient?” The questions were as follows with data to show effectiveness in systematic implementation of each question with patients: 7,8,29 Patient: Preferences and expectations? Primary care: Prioritization of condition(s) life threatening or affecting health? Pharmacy: Patient problems that are (or potentially) drug related? Nursing: Patient capacity to subscribe to treatment recommendations? Dentistry: Dental conditions/risk factors that affect (or are indicators of) general health? Nutrition: Nutritional/dietary factors contributing to disease/condition, asking what the patient eats and drinks on a daily basis? Social work: Barriers/solutions for care (money, transportation, organization, availability of assistance, consent, etc. )? Physical therapist/occupational therapist: Long‐term outcomes for therapy programs? Family caregiver: Person(s) responsible for the patient's daily living activities (consent, finances, etc.…”

“…What research is called for to see this transfer take place? The authors submit that (1) the literature is sparse on the topic; (2) a small but growing body of scholarship on geriatric risk assessment, incorporates the thinking of health team members (Inter-Professional Practice-IPP), 7,8 and (3) establishment of geriatric as a state of risk and not necessarily the number of years since birth (an age) can be starting points to close the gap of taking the science to the patient. At the core of this essay is the paradigm shift from treating the person's oral health symptoms (with restorations and periodontal treatment) to managing the person who has oral disease as part of their overall health and social context.…”