ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate current issues and areas for improvement in the Korean Dental Hygienist National Licensing Examination (KDHNLE) through an expert Delphi survey. METHODS: A Delphi survey was conducted from May through August 2016 in Korea. This Delphi survey included 20 persons representing the field of dental hygiene (7 groups from various dental hygiene-related organizations). The Delphi survey was administered through e-mail as 3 rounds of questionnaire surveys regarding the issues facing the KDHNLE and potential solutions to those challenges. The primary Delphi survey was an open questionnaire. In each round, subjects' responses were categorized according to the detailed themes of their responses. The minimum value of the content validity ratio of the survey results was determined by the number of panels participating in the Delphi survey. RESULTS: Issues facing the KDHNLE were identified from the results of the Delphi survey. The following 4 items had an average importance score of 4.0 or higher and were considered as important by over 85% of the panels: the failure of the practical test to reflect actual clinical settings, the focus of the practical test on dental scaling, the gap between the items evaluated on the national examination and actual practical work, and insufficiency in strengthening the expertise of licensed dental hygienists. The following items were suggested for improvement: more rigorous rater training, adjustment of the difficulty of the licensing examination, the introduction of a specialized dental hygienist system, and more rigorous refresher training for licensed dental hygienists. CONCLUSION: Based on the above results, the KDHNLE should be improved according to the core competencies of dental hygienists, including on-site clinical practice experience.
Subject(s)
Humans , Dental Health Surveys , Dental Hygienists , Dental Scaling , Electronic Mail , Korea , Licensure , Oral Hygiene , Republic of KoreaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hematology analyzers may ineffectively recognize abnormal cells, and manual differential counts may be imprecise for leukopenic samples. We evaluated the efficacy of the Hematoflow method for determining the leukocyte differential in leukopenic samples and compared this method with the manual differential method. METHODS: We selected 249 blood samples from 167 patients with leukopenia (WBC counts, 500-2,000/microL) for analysis in this study. The EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples were analyzed using an automatic blood cell counter (DxH800; Beckman Coulter, USA) and flow cytometry (FC 500; Beckman Coulter) by using Cytodiff reagent and analysis software (Beckman Coulter). Hematoflow results were selected or calculated from DxH800 and Cytodiff results. Two trained pathologists performed a manual differential count by counting 50-100 cells. RESULTS: The precision of the Hematoflow method was superior to that of the manual method in counting 5 leukocyte subpopulations, immature granulocytes (IGs), and blasts. Blasts were detected in all 45 cases (100%) by Hematoflow. The correlation of the Cytodiff blast count to the reference count was high (r = 0.8325). For all other cell populations, the correlation of the Hematoflow results with the reference count was stronger than that of the other manual counts with the reference count. CONCLUSIONS: The Hematoflow differential counting method is more reproducible and sensitive than manual counting, and is relatively easy to perform. In particular, this method detected leukemic blasts more sensitively than manual differential counts. The Hematoflow method is a very useful supplement to automated cell counting.
Subject(s)
Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Flow Cytometry/methods , Granulocytes/cytology , Leukocyte Count/methods , Leukocytes/cytology , Leukopenia/blood , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , SoftwareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hematology analyzers may ineffectively recognize abnormal cells, and manual differential counts may be imprecise for leukopenic samples. We evaluated the efficacy of the Hematoflow method for determining the leukocyte differential in leukopenic samples and compared this method with the manual differential method. METHODS: We selected 249 blood samples from 167 patients with leukopenia (WBC counts, 500-2,000/microL) for analysis in this study. The EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples were analyzed using an automatic blood cell counter (DxH800; Beckman Coulter, USA) and flow cytometry (FC 500; Beckman Coulter) by using Cytodiff reagent and analysis software (Beckman Coulter). Hematoflow results were selected or calculated from DxH800 and Cytodiff results. Two trained pathologists performed a manual differential count by counting 50-100 cells. RESULTS: The precision of the Hematoflow method was superior to that of the manual method in counting 5 leukocyte subpopulations, immature granulocytes (IGs), and blasts. Blasts were detected in all 45 cases (100%) by Hematoflow. The correlation of the Cytodiff blast count to the reference count was high (r = 0.8325). For all other cell populations, the correlation of the Hematoflow results with the reference count was stronger than that of the other manual counts with the reference count. CONCLUSIONS: The Hematoflow differential counting method is more reproducible and sensitive than manual counting, and is relatively easy to perform. In particular, this method detected leukemic blasts more sensitively than manual differential counts. The Hematoflow method is a very useful supplement to automated cell counting.