Evaluation of Restorative Dentistry Specialty Registrars’ Clinical Experience of Developmental Disorders: A Survey

Background

Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry (StRs) should be competent in the independent restorative management of patients with developmental disorders including hypodontia and cleft lip/palate upon completion of their specialist training.1 Knowledge and management may be assessed via the Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE) in Restorative Dentistry.2

Objective

The aim of this study was to collate and compare data on the training and experience of StRs in the management of patients with developmental disorders across different training units within the British Isles.

Methods

Questionnaires were distributed to all StRs attending the Annual General Meeting of the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group, Belfast, in October 2015. Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience of assessing and planning treatment for patients with developmental disorders, construction of appropriate prostheses, and provision of dental implants. Respondents were also asked to record clinical supervision and didactic teaching at their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing a future ISFE station assessing knowledge of developmental disorders.

Results

Responses were obtained from 32 StRs (n=32) training within all five countries of the British Isles. The majority of respondents were based in England (72%) with three in Wales, and two in each of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. Approximately one third of respondents (34%) were in the final years of training (years 4-6). Almost half of the StRs reported that they were not confident of independently assessing (44%) new patients with a developmental disorder, with larger numbers (72%) indicating a lack of confidence in treatment planning. Six respondents rated their experience of treating obturator patients as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. The majority (56%) rated their experience of implant provision in these cases as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ with three-quarters (75%) rating clinical supervision at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. Less than half (41%) rated the didactic teaching at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, and only 8 StRs indicated that they were confident of passing an ISFE station focused on developmental disorders.

Conclusion

Experience and training regarding patients with developmental disorders is inconsistent for StRs across the British Isles with a number of trainees reporting a lack of clinical exposure.

Classifying cerebral palsy: are we nearly there?

BACKGROUND: Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common cause of physical disability in childhood in developed countries and encompasses a wide range of clinical phenotypes. Classification of CP according to movement disorder or topographical distribution is widely used. However, these classifications are not reliable nor do they accurately predict musculoskeletal pathology. More recently, the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) has been introduced and its validity, reliability, and clinical utility have been confirmed. In 2005 it was suggested that children should be described and classified according to the GMFCS in all outcome studies involving children with CP, in the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics (JPO). This study aimed to describe utilization of the GMFCS in 3 journals: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS Am), JPO, and Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology (DMCN), over a 7-year period (2005 to 2011), and any relationship to the journal's impact factor. A secondary aim was to establish if differences in methodological quality existed between those studies utilizing GMFCS and those that did not.

METHODS: A targeted literature search of the 3 selected journals using the term "cerebral palsy" was conducted using the Medline database. Utilization of the GMFCS was assessed using report of these data in the methods or results section of the retrieved papers. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) was employed to evaluate the quality of papers published in JPO.

RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and in 85 (68%) the GMFCS was used. Of these, 112 were published in JPO, of which 51 (46%) utilized the GMFCS, compared with 72% for JBJS Am, and 88% for DMCN. In the JPO, utilization of the GMFCS improved from 13% to 80%, over the 7-year study period.

CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of the GMFCS has increased rapidly over the past 7 years in the JPO but there is room for further improvement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.

Handbook of Disabled Children's Childhoods: Building Understandings: Child, Youth, Family and Disability. Palgrave Macmillan:Disabled Children in Out-of-Home Care: Issues and Challenges for Practice Kelly, B., Sandra, D. & Winter, K. 2016

This chapter provides an overview of some of the key findings from a large mixed methods study regarding disabled children in care in Northern Ireland