Premium
Program Director Perceived Factors for an Enhanced Advanced Education Program in Prosthodontics Recall System
Author(s) -
Afshari Fatemeh S.,
Knoernschild Kent L.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2011.00733.x
Subject(s) - recall , curriculum , medicine , psychology , medical education , applied psychology , pedagogy , cognitive psychology
Purpose: A survey study of program directors in Advanced Education Programs in Prosthodontics (AEPPs) was conducted to determine the barriers to and factors that can lead to an enhanced patient‐centered recall system. Material and Methods: Surveys were sent to AEPP directors across the United States to assess their program's recall protocol. This survey first identified whether an active recall program existed. Based on the existence of recall, the survey then delved into benefits of recall systems for patients and residents, barriers to the formation of a successful recall system, and factors that can be improved upon for an enhanced recall system. Results: Thirty‐two of the 45 programs responded; however, only 28 of the surveys were completed entirely, giving a response rate of 62%. Of these 32 programs, 19 (59.4%) reported having a recall system. A majority of the AEPPs with recall (87.5%) indicated that their system can be further improved. Almost all of the programs without recall (91.7%) indicated that if solutions to the most common barriers to recall were found, they would like to implement one within their program. Some hindrances faced by all programs included budget for initiating and maintaining a recall system, personnel to perform hygiene, a patient tracking system, patient education, and time allocation in the residents’ curriculum. Mann‐Whitney analyses indicated no statistically significant difference in each factor between programs with and without a recall system. Power analysis suggested that differences in perceived barriers between programs with and without recall systems may have been found if the response rate was 71% or greater. Necessary budget and facilities for initiating or maintaining a recall system may be the greatest difference in barrier importance between programs with and without recall. Conclusions: Prosthodontic program directors perceived their program's recall system could be improved. If solutions to the most common hindrances were found, almost all program directors desired to establish a recall system within their AEPP. Therefore, a pilot recall system could be valuable in identifying these solutions in establishing an effective recall system for prosthodontic programs within the context of patient health promotion, program curriculum, and financial ramifications.