Premium
An evaluation of the geriatric dental curricula within Advanced Education in General Dentistry and General Practice Residency programs in the United States
Author(s) -
Mueldener Emma J.,
McQuistan Michelle R.,
Qian Fang,
Hartshorn Jennifer E.,
Oishi Matthew M.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
special care in dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.328
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1754-4505
pISSN - 0275-1879
DOI - 10.1111/scd.12553
Subject(s) - medicine , geriatric dentistry , curriculum , wilcoxon signed rank test , test (biology) , geriatrics , family medicine , exact test , descriptive statistics , head and neck , dentistry , surgery , mann–whitney u test , oral health , psychology , pedagogy , paleontology , statistics , mathematics , psychiatry , biology
Aim To compare the geriatric dentistry curricula between Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) and General Practice Residency (GPR) programs. Methods A 108‐item survey was developed to assess residents’ didactic and clinical experiences pertaining to geriatric patients. Surveys were mailed in 2018 to all AEGD (N = 89) and GPR (N = 180) program directors. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive and bivariate analyses with the chi‐square test, Fisher's exact test, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test (alpha = .05). Results Twenty‐four AEGD and fifty‐eight GPR directors completed surveys (response rate = 30%). Seventy‐one percent of responding programs reported mandatory didactic training pertaining to frail and functionally dependent geriatric adults. Ninety‐nine percent of respondents reported that residents provided treatment to geriatric patients; however, they were less likely to perform procedures on frail and functionally dependent patients. Only 15% of respondents provided nursing home care. Considering all patient encounters, responding GPR programs were more likely than AEGD programs to treat patients using IV bisphosphonates (63% vs 25%; P < .01), undergoing chemotherapy (48% vs 16%; P = .02), and undergoing head and neck radiation therapy (55% vs 25%; P = .02). Conclusion A majority of responding AEGD and GPR programs reported providing educational experiences pertaining to geriatric patients; however, GPR programs reported treating more medically complex patients than AEGD programs.