Experience of Managing Head and Neck Cancer Patients Amongst Specialty Trainees in Restorative Dentistry

Background: Upon completion of Specialty Training in Restorative Dentistry, trainees (StRs) should
be proficient in maxillofacial prosthodontics to meet the restorative needs of head and neck cancer patients (HANC), and in preparation for the Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE).1,2
Objective: The aim of this study is to collate and compare data relating to the training of Restorative Dentistry Rs in the management of HANC patients across different geographical locations within the British Isles. Methods: Current trainees were invited to complete an online questionnaire by the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group (SRRDG). Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience in assessing and planning treatment for HANC patients, attending theatre and manufacturing surgical obturators, and in providing implants for appropriate cases. Respondents were also asked to appraise clinical and didactic teaching within their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing oncology- based questions in a future ISFE. Results: Responses were obtained from 21 StRs (n=21) training in all five countries within the British Isles. Most respondents were based in England (76%). A third were in their 5th year of training. Less than half reported that they were confident
of independently assessing (48%) or treatment planning (38%) HANC patients. More than half of StRs (52%) indicated that they were not confident of attending theatres alone and manufacturing a surgical obturator. One third (33%) rated their experience of treating oncology patients with implants as poor or very poor, including three in their 5th year of training. Less than one third rated didactic teaching in maxillofacial prosthodontics at their unit as good or excellent. Only 4 respondents indicated that they were confident of answering an ISFE oncology question on management of healthcare delivery. Six StRs expressed concerns over a lack of case-based exposure.
Conclusion: Experience and training in maxillofacial prosthodontics is inconsistent for StRs across the British Isles with many lacking in clinical exposure.

Specialty Registrars’ Experience of Managing Head and Neck Cancer Patients

Objective The aim of this study was to collate and compare data on the training of Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry (StRs) in the management of head and neck cancer (HANC) patients across different training units within the UK and Ireland. Methods Current trainees were invited to complete an online questionnaire by the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group (SRRDG). Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience of assessing and planning treatment for HANC patients, attending theatre alone and manufacturing surgical obturators, and providing implants for appropriate cases. Respondents were also asked to appraise clinical and didactic teaching at their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing a future Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE)-station assessing knowledge of head and neck cancer. Results Responses were obtained from 21 StRs (n=21) training within all five countries of the British Isles. Most respondents were based in England (76%), with one StR in each of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A third (33%) were in their 5th year of training. Almost half of the StRs indicated that they were confident of independently assessing (48%) new patients with HANC, with fewer numbers reporting confidence in treatment planning (38%). The majority (52%) of respondents indicated that they were not confident of attending theatre alone and manufacturing a surgical obturator. A third (33%) rated their experience of treating HANC patients with implants as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’, including three StRs in their 5th year of training. Less than one third (<33%) rated didactic teaching in maxillofacial prosthodontics at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, and only 7 StRs indicated that they were confident of passing an ISFE-station focused on HANC. Conclusion Experience and training regarding patients with head and neck cancer is inconsistent for StRs across the UK and Ireland with a number of trainees reporting a lack of clinical exposure.

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.