Avoiding isolation and gaining insight

Endodontic follow-up practices, sources of knowledge, and self-assessed treatment outcome among general dental practitioners in Sweden and Norway

Objective: To reduce the gap between what can be achieved in endodontic treatments and the observed treatment outcome among general dental practitioners, the present study set out to assess the status of the endodontic practices as regards to knowledge and self-assessed skills among general dental practitioners in Sweden and Norway.Material and method: The questionnaire was sent to 1384 general dental practitioners. It contained questions regarding access to continuing education in endodontics, sources of knowledge for clinical management of patients, post-operative follow-ups, self-assessed success-rate, and the initial diagnosis impact on the outcome of endodontic treatments.Results: The response rate was 61.4%. Almost half estimated their endodontic success-rate to be 90%. About two-thirds of the respondents did not know, or did not believe, that the initial diagnosis could affect the outcome of their endodontic treatments. Respondents who did not believe the diagnosis could impact the outcome were more likely to estimate their success rate as the highest (p<.001). Less than half performed post-operative follow-ups a year after treatment. A third of the respondents had not attended any continuing endodontic education.Conclusion: Dentists who do not receive regular feedback on their treatments may lack insight into their own shortcomings. If this is combined with insufficient knowledge and understanding it may result in sub-par endodontic treatments being performed. It is important to have reliable ways to communicate current endodontic knowledge and to establish robust methods that may help dentists accurately assess their own performance in endodontics.

Sex differences in fitness to practise test scores: a cohort study of GPs

BACKGROUND

Tests of competence are written and clinical assessments taken by doctors under investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) who have significant performance concerns. Male doctors on average perform more poorly in clinical assessments than female doctors, and are more likely to be sanctioned. It is unclear why.

AIM

To examine sex differences in the tests of competence assessment scores of GPs under investigation by the GMC, compared with GPs not under investigation, and whether scores mediate any relationship between sex and sanction likelihood.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective cohort study of GPs' administrative tests of competence data.

METHOD

Analysis of variance was undertaken to compare written and clinical tests of competence performance by sex and GP group (under investigation versus volunteers). Path analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between sex, written and clinical tests of competence performance, and investigation outcome.

RESULTS

On the written test, female GPs under investigation outperformed male GPs under investigation (Cohen's d = 0.28, P = 0.01); there was no sex difference in the volunteer group (Cohen's d = 0.02, P = 0.93). On the clinical assessment, female GPs outperformed male GPs in both groups (Cohen's d = 0.61, P<0.0001). A higher clinical score predicted remaining on the UK medical register without a warning or sanction, with no independent effect of sex controlling for assessment performance.

CONCLUSION

Female GPs outperform male GPs on clinical assessments, even among GPs with generally very poor performance. Male GPs under investigation may have particularly poor knowledge. Further research is required to understand potential sex differences in doctors who take tests of competence and how these impact on sex differences in investigation outcomes.