ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To see if poor self-assessment of surgical performance during removal of mandibular third molars is influenced by self-deception (lack of insight) and impression management (trying to convey a favourable impression). DESIGN: A prospective study of 50 surgeons, surgically removing a lower third molar tooth. SETTING: One UK dental school over a two year period. METHODS: The surgeons' surgical skills were assessed (by two assessors) and self-assessed using check-list and global rating scales. Post-operatively, surgeons completed validated deception questionnaires which measured both self-deception enhancement (lack of insight), and impression management (the tendency to deliberately convey a favourable impression). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reliability between assessors, and between assessors' and surgeons' self-assessments were calculated. Discrepancies between assessors' and surgeons' scores were correlated with surgeons' deception scores. RESULTS: Reliability between assessors was excellent for checklist (0.96) and global rating scales (0.89) and better than the reliability between assessors and surgeons (0.51 and 0.49). There was a statistically significant correlation (r=0.45 p=0.001 checklist, r= 0.48 p<0.001 global) between over/ under-rating of their surgical performance by surgeons and their impression management scores. No statistically significant correlation was found between this inaccuracy in self-assessment and surgeons' individual self-deception scores. CONCLUSION: The majority of surgeons scored themselves higher than their assessors did for surgical skill in removing a single mandibular third molar tooth. Impression management (the tendency to deliberately convey a favourable impression) may contribute to a surgeon's inaccurate self-reporting of performance. Lack of insight appears to be much less important as a contributing factor. The authors speculate that pressure to provide evidence of good performance may be encouraging surgeons to manage their image and over-score themselves.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Dentists/psychology , Self-Assessment , Surgery, Oral/psychology , Clinical Competence , Deception , Dentist-Patient Relations , Female , Humans , Male , Mandible , Molar, Third/surgery , Observer Variation , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Tooth Extraction/psychologyABSTRACT
Our aim was to find out whether scores derived from a patient-centred outcome questionnaire correlated with the skill of the surgeon as assessed by a trainer. We found a relatively poor correlation after removal of a third mandibular molar, probably because outcome scores incorporate other measures, including patients' perceptions, anaesthesia, clarity of explanations and instructions, apart from surgical skill. The experience of the surgeon and the length of operation also influenced the results. The correlation was closest (i.e. higher levels of skill produced milder symptoms) when the operation was under local anaesthesia, probably because the surgeon's skill, behaviour, and attitude were visible to the patient throughout, and other team members had a less prominent role. In future, it may be more appropriate to assess the performance of the whole surgical team, rather than the surgeon alone.
Subject(s)
Clinical Competence/standards , Oral Surgical Procedures/standards , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Anesthesia, Dental , Anesthesia, General , Anesthesia, Local , Attitude of Health Personnel , Attitude to Health , Dental Service, Hospital , Dentist-Patient Relations , Humans , Molar, Third/surgery , Patient Satisfaction , Quality of Life , Reproducibility of Results , Time Factors , Tooth Extraction/standardsABSTRACT
There is an increasing demand for methods to objectively assess a surgeon's competence. The purpose of this study is to test two evaluation methods that assess a surgeon's skills in the removal of mandibular third molar teeth. One method uses an objective checklist scale by which twenty components of the operation are judged as correct or incorrect. The second method is a global rating scale, that scores different aspects of performance, such as respect for tissue, number of manoeuvres, knowledge of procedure and instrument handling. Using these two methods, assessors judged the removal of 22 mandibular third molar teeth by 17 different surgeons. Good inter-rater reliability was achieved using both scales. A greater preference was expressed for the global rating scale for assessment and for the objective checklist scale for guiding feedback in training. Scales such as these need to be developed for, and tested on, different surgical procedures in order that credible assessment of surgical skills can be obtained.
