Julie C Williams

Which professional (non-technical) competencies are most important to the success of graduate veterinarians? A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review: BEME Guide No. 38

ABSTRACT Background: Despite the growing prominence of professional (non-technical) competencies in veterinary education, the evidence to support their importance to veterinary graduates is unclear. Aim: To summarize current evidence within the veterinary literature for the importance of professional competencies to graduate success. Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted (CAB Abstracts, Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, Australian and British Education Index, Dissertations & Theses) from 1988 to 2015 and limited to the veterinary discipline (veterinar* term required). Evidence was sought from consensus-based competence frameworks, surveys of stakeholder perceptions, and empirical evidence linked to relevant outcomes (e.g. employability, client satisfaction or compliance). Data extraction was completed by two independent reviewers and included a quality assessment of each source. Results: Fifty-two sources were included in the review, providing evidence from expert frameworks (10 sources), stakeholder perceptions (30 sources, including one from the previous category), and empirical research (13 sources). Communication skills were the only competency to be well-supported by all three categories of evidence. Other competencies supported by multiple sources of empirical evidence include empathy, relationship-centered care, self-efficacy, and business skills. Other competencies perceived to be relatively more important included awareness of limitations, professional values, critical thinking, collaboration, and resilience. Conclusions: This review has highlighted the comparatively weak body of evidence supporting the importance of professional competencies for veterinary graduate success, with the exception of communication skills. However we stress this is more indicative of the scarcity of high-quality veterinary-based education research in the field, than of the true priority of these competencies.

Chewing gum vs. ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain, a multi-centre randomised controlled trial - the effect of anxiety.

Objectives Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. An objective of this study, part of a large previously reported RCT on pain and analgesic use, was to determine the effect of anxiety on perceived pain and use of analgesia. Methods 1000 patients aged 11–17 years, undergoing upper and lower fixed appliance treatment in nine hospital departments were recruited into this two-arm parallel design randomised controlled trial. One arm was given sugar-free chewing gum and the other arm ibuprofen for pain relief. Neither the clinicians nor patients were blinded to assignment. In addition to recording pain experience and analgesic use for 3 days following appliance placement and first archwire change, each patient recorded their level of anxiety immediately following the fitting of the appliance and the first archwire change. Results 419 chewing gum group (84%) and 407 ibuprofen group (83%) questionnaires were returned following appliance placement, and 343 chewing gum group (70%) and 341 ibuprofen group (71%) questionnaires were returned following the first archwire change. The mean anxiety scores following fitting of the appliance and first archwire change were 2.7 (SD 2.1) and 1.6 (SD 1.8), respectively. There were weak but significant positive associations between anxiety scores and pain scores. Multi-level modelling produced a coefficient for anxiety of 0.23 (95% CI 0.17–0.28) for appliance placement, suggesting a small rise (0.23) on the 11-point pain scale for a one-point increase on the corresponding anxiety scale. Following archwire change, the corresponding coefficient was 0.32 (0.24–0.39). For ibuprofen use, again simple analyses suggested a relationship with anxiety. Multi-level logistic modelling produced an odds ratio for ibuprofen use of 1.11 (95% CI 1.07–1.15) at appliance placement and 1.21 (1.10–1.33) at the first archwire change. There was a 10–20% increase in the odds of using ibuprofen for each one-point increase on the anxiety scale. No such relationship was found between anxiety and chewing gum use. There were no adverse effects or harms reported during the trial. Approvals were granted by the Research Ethics Committee (08/H0106/139), R&D and MHRA (Eudract 2008-005522-36) and the trial was registered on the ISRCTN (79884739) and NIHR (6631) portfolios. Support was provided by the British Orthodontic Society Foundation. Conclusions There was a weak positive correlation between anxiety reported and pain experienced following both the initial fitting of the fixed appliances and at the subsequent archwire change. Patients that were more anxious tended to take more ibuprofen for their pain relief.

Making time for what's important: what elements should we value when planning practice-based professional training?

Newly qualified professional healthcare graduates, whether training to become doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons or nurses, tend to need some support as they take their first steps along that bumpy road from university to confident, competent practice. We identify some key features of the UK programme of dental practice-based training to acknowledge its strengths – 12 months of clinical practice within a well-established dental team, one-to-one weekly meetings with the same dedicated mentor, regular peer learning with the same group of peers over 12 months and the opportunity to observe role models from the profession including training programme directors and other general dental practitioners (GDPs). This educational programme is unique to dentistry and this article outlines why we believe it is important to value these features when designing postgraduate professional training in healthcare sciences.

Who wears the braces? A practical application of adolescent consent.

The presentation of alternative treatment plans and the discussion of these options with the adolescent patient is a routine part of both general dental and specialist orthodontic practice. This article will cover the issues involved in obtaining consent for treatment from the adolescent patient and suggests a practical means, if appropriate, to ensure that these patients can give and withdraw consent for their own treatment.