Search

Introduction: The curriculum of the three dental schools in the Netherlands consists of a three‐year bachelor's and three‐year master's course. The education programmes focus inter alia on clinical dental reasoning, thinking and acting scientifically, general oral healthcare activities, and communication and (inter)professional cooperation. This study examined how recently graduated dentists, in the light of their work experience, evaluate their education in retrospect. Materials and Methods: All 1074 dentists who graduated between 2012 and mid‐2017 were invited by e‐mail to answer a web survey. Of those, 314 (29%) took part in the study. Results: The majority of dentists were positive about their knowledge of general and clinical oral healthcare fields when they graduated (70% and 68%, respectively). Fewer dentists were satisfied with their skills in terms of some specific procedures (50%) and clinical professional areas (33%). By far, the majority (85%) were satisfied with the educational skills of their teachers. The majority (70%) felt that their education fitted in well with their professional practice. Nevertheless, 60% thought a year's trainee work experience would be a good idea. The overall evaluation of dentists who have their own practices was less positive than those who do not. Conclusion: Knowledge and skills relating to managing a practice were not sufficiently addressed in the programme. The introduction of a practical internship would be desirable, preferably during the education. But when they look back, the majority of recently graduated dentists in the Netherlands are generally positive about the education they received. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: To investigate which opinions among dentists are associated with level of technology use, when characteristics of the dentist and dental practice, as well as motivating work aspects are taken into account. Methods: A total of 1000 general dental practitioners in the Netherlands received a questionnaire on digital technologies they use, opinions on using technologies and related motivating work aspects. Questions were derived from expert interviews, the Dentists’ Experienced Job Resources Scale and literature on technology implementation. Technology use was measured as the number of technologies used, and divided into three technology user groups: low (using 0‐4 technologies, mostly administrative and radiographic technologies), intermediate (using 5‐7, more varied technologies) and high technology users (using 8‐12, including more innovative diagnostic technologies). Opinions on technology use and motivating work aspects were analysed using principal components analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis. Scores on all components and factors were calculated for each respondent by computing the mean of all valid responses on the underlying items. Differences in these scale scores on opinions among the technology user groups were assessed using one‐way analysis of variance and Kruskal–Wallis tests. A multiple linear regression analysis assessed the association of scale scores about opinions on technology use with the sum of technologies used, taking into account motivating work aspects and characteristics of the dentist and dental practice. Results: The response rate was 31%. Dentists who were high technology users perceived technologies as yielding more improvements in quality of care, adding more value to the dental practice and being easier to use, than low technology users. High technology users thought technologies added more value to their work and they reported higher skills and resources. They also focused more on technologies and thought these are more ready to use than low technology users. High technology users derived more motivation from “Immediate results” and “Craftsmanship” than low technology users. Personal and practice characteristics, motivating work aspects, and the opinion scales “Focus” and “Added value to dentist” explained 50% of the variance in the number of technologies a dentist uses. Conclusion: Opinions on digital technologies among dentists and motivating work aspects vary with level of technology use. Being more focused on technologies and perceiving a higher added value from using them are associated with using more digital dental technologies, when taking into account motivating work aspects and characteristics of the dentist and dental practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A complaint from a patient can have a serious impact on the well-being of dentists. Little is known, however, about the nature and the extent of this impact. Methods: Therefore in 2013 an anonymous survey was conducted among 955 dentists and dental specialists who were involved in a complaints procedure dealt with by the Complaints Committee of the Royal Dutch Dental Association (KNMT) in the period of mid-2008 to mid-2013. Results: In total 413 (43 %) of these dentists participated in the study. As a result of a formal complaint 71 % of the respondents experienced a considerable impact in their professional practising, while 52 % stated that it had (also) seriously influenced their attitude towards colleagues and patients. Furthermore, 60 % (also) mentioned effects of a complaints procedure regarding their mental and/or physical well-being. Conclusions: Being confronted with a formal complaint from a patient leads to a considerable impact on dentists' professional practice and personal well-being. It is remarkable this did not only pertain to a 'negative' impact, but also to a 'positive' impact. Despite unpleasant feelings, several dentists regarded the complaint as a 'wake-up call'. Furthermore, given the relatively high number of successful mediation attempts it can be concluded that this form of complaint handling appears to be a successful way of solving problems that have arisen between patients and dentists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To investigate (1) the degree of digital technology adoption among general dental practitioners, and to assess (2) which personal and practice factors are associated with technology use. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed among a stratified sample of 1000 general dental practitioners in the Netherlands, to measure the use of fifteen administrative, communicative, clinical and diagnostic technologies, as well as personal factors and dental practice characteristics. Results: The response rate was 31.3%; 65.1% replied to the questionnaire on paper and 34.9% online. Each specific digital technology was used by between 93.2% and 6.8% of the dentists. Administrative technologies were generally used by more dentists than clinical technologies. Dentists had adopted an average number of 6.3±2.3 technologies. 22.5% were low technology users (0 to 4 technologies), 46.2% were intermediate technology users (5 to 7 technologies) and 31.3% were high technology users (8 to12 technologies). High technology users more frequently had a specialization (p<0.001), were younger on average (p=0.024), and worked more hours per week (p=0.003) than low technology users, and invested more hours per year in professional activities (p=0.026) than intermediate technology users. High technology use was also more common for dentists working in practices with a higher average number of patients per year (p<0.001), with more dentists working in the practice (p<0.001) and with more staff (p<0.001). Conclusion: With few exceptions, all dentists use some or a substantial number of digital technologies. Technology use is associated with various patterns of person-specific factors, and is higher when working in larger dental practices. The findings provide insight into the current state of digital technology adoption in dental practices. Further exploration why some dentists are more reluctant to adopt technologies than others is valuable for the dental profession’s agility in adjusting to technological developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]