The impact of teamworking on the knowledge and attitudes of final year dental students

• Published in: British dental journal Vol. 206; no. 3; pp. 163 - 167
• Main Authors: Ross, M. K, Turner, S, Ibbetson, R. J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 14.02.2009; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: Adult; Attitude of Health Personnel; Attitudes; College students; Cooperative Behavior; Curricula; Dental care; Dental Care - organization & administration; Dental Hygienists; Dental schools; Dentistry; Dentists; Education; Education, Dental - methods; Educational Measurement; Female; Group Processes; Humans; Interprofessional Relations; Knowledge; Male; Medicine; Patient Care Team - organization & administration; Primary care; Professional Role - psychology; Professionals; Questionnaires; Schools; Students, Dental - psychology; Teamwork; Therapists; United Kingdom > UK
• ISSN: 0007-0610; 1476-5373
• DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.59

Key Points The opinion of undergraduates on provision of treatment still tends to be dentist-centric. The broader dental team should be aware of the professional status and clinical ability of their colleagues. Teamworking should be encouraged throughout the undergraduate curriculum. Aims To relate final year UK dental undergraduates' experience of teamwork-related training to their knowledge of the clinical role of dental hygienist-therapists, and their views of the clinical roles of dental care professionals. Methods A postal questionnaire was sent to the ten UK dental schools which had agreed to participate. Analysis was based on standard non-parametric statistical tests. Results Of the 705 final year students in the ten schools, 358 (51%) returned questionnaires. Numbers from each school ranged from 79 to 6 (mean 35.8). Eighty-nine percent of students reported receiving information on roles of dental team members; 61% had experienced joint teaching sessions with DCPs; 53% had shared clinical treatment of patients with student hygienists or hygienist-therapists. Thirty-two percent of respondents had experienced all three elements. Views on this experience were generally positive, particularly in relation to shared clinical treatment sessions. Students who had received such training were more knowledgeable about the clinical remit of dental hygienist-therapists. However, training experience was not related to their views on the appropriate clinical activity of DCPs which tended to be dentist-centric even for many procedures within the legal remit of hygienists and hygienist-therapists. Conclusions The study suggests that acceptance of non-dentists providing patient care lags behind the comparable situation within the primary care medical team. If we are to succeed in the delivery of a modernised dental care system, it is crucial that dental education promotes awareness and acceptance of the professional status and ability of DCP colleagues.