Perception of recently graduated Dutch dentists of their education.

INTRODUCTION: The curriculum of the three dental schools in the Netherlands consists of a three-year bachelor's and three-year master's course. The education programmes focus inter alia on clinical dental reasoning, thinking and acting scientifically, general oral healthcare activities, and communication and (inter)professional cooperation. This study examined how recently graduated dentists, in the light of their work experience, evaluate their education in retrospect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 1074 dentists who graduated between 2012 and mid-2017 were invited by e-mail to answer a web survey. Of those, 314 (29%) took part in the study. RESULTS: The majority of dentists were positive about their knowledge of general and clinical oral healthcare fields when they graduated (70% and 68%, respectively). Fewer dentists were satisfied with their skills in terms of some specific procedures (50%) and clinical professional areas (33%). By far, the majority (85%) were satisfied with the educational skills of their teachers. The majority (70%) felt that their education fitted in well with their professional practice. Nevertheless, 60% thought a year's trainee work experience would be a good idea. The overall evaluation of dentists who have their own practices was less positive than those who do not. CONCLUSION: Knowledge and skills relating to managing a practice were not sufficiently addressed in the programme. The introduction of a practical internship would be desirable, preferably during the education. But when they look back, the majority of recently graduated dentists in the Netherlands are generally positive about the education they received.

Collaboration between general dental practitioners and dental hygienists: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Influenced by governmental measures, collaboration in oral health care practices in the Netherlands has increased in recent decades. Previous studies on this subject have mainly concerned the composition of the staff or have been normative rather than descriptive. Based on the existing literature, four aspects were expected to be of significant influence on the collaboration on oral health care practices: goals, leadership, the allocation of tasks and responsibilities and formalization. METHODS: The aim of this study was to describe a classification of collaboration between general dental practitioners and dental hygienists within oral health care practices in the Netherlands. Eighteen semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted in nine oral health care practices, which differed with regard to both practice characteristics and characteristics of the principal general dental practitioner. In all practices, the principal general dental practitioner and one dental hygienist were consulted. The interviews were conducted in the practices of the respondents and were held between October 2019 and July 2020. The interviews were analyzed through theoretical thematic analysis using Microsoft Word 2010 and Atlas.ti 8. Three researchers coded and analyzed three practices, and discussed their results. Based on their mutual conclusions, one researcher analysed all practices. The final results were reviewed and approved by the other two researchers. RESULTS: Different factors influencing the collaboration between general dental practitioners and dental hygienist in the Netherlands were found. The most important factors seemed to be leadership style and goals for collaboration. Leadership style varied from very directive to very supportive and seemed to be connected to the allocation of responsibilities. Goals for collaboration varied from predominantly patient-related to mostly practice-related. Formalization appeared to be more present in larger practices and practices that are affiliated to a dental chain. CONCLUSIONS: Based on leadership style and goals for collaboration, a classification was identified. This classification is recommended as a starting point for further research on directive and supportive leadership in oral health care practices.

Work situation and prospects of recently graduated dentists in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Dentists who have graduated recently from a Dutch dental school work mainly in the Netherlands, where collaboration and differentiation are relevant factors. Furthermore, the Netherlands face regional undersupplies of dentists. The objective of this study was to describe choices and aims of recently graduated dentists for the near future. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An invitation for the web questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 945 dentists who had graduated from a Dutch dental school between 2013 and 2017, of whom 230 (24.3%) participated in the survey. RESULTS: Approximately three quarters (77%) of the recently graduated dentists worked as a general dentist in a practice of some else, primarily in urban areas. The choice for a practice was affected by location, earnings, and the opportunity to gain experience. Furthermore, the career choices were affected most by the desired length of the working week and financial security. The narrow majority (53%) of the recently graduated dentists believed that in 5 years they will be practice owner; 49% expected to be a differentiated dentist. Furthermore, 41% believed they will work in a smaller municipality. DISCUSSION: Although recently graduated dentists seem receptive to work in smaller municipalities, the peripheral regions are conceivably less appealing. Practice ownership conceivably is an option for the near future for a narrow majority of the recently graduated dentists. CONCLUSION: Recently graduated dentists have different preferences regarding their work situation in 5 years.

The impact of a formal complaint on Dutch dentists' professional practice: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: A complaint from a patient can have a serious impact on the well-being of dentists. Little is known, however, about the nature and the extent of this impact. METHODS: Therefore in 2013 an anonymous survey was conducted among 955 dentists and dental specialists who were involved in a complaints procedure dealt with by the Complaints Committee of the Royal Dutch Dental Association (KNMT) in the period of mid-2008 to mid-2013. RESULTS: In total 413 (43 %) of these dentists participated in the study. As a result of a formal complaint 71 % of the respondents experienced a considerable impact in their professional practising, while 52 % stated that it had (also) seriously influenced their attitude towards colleagues and patients. Furthermore, 60 % (also) mentioned effects of a complaints procedure regarding their mental and/or physical well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Being confronted with a formal complaint from a patient leads to a considerable impact on dentists' professional practice and personal well-being. It is remarkable this did not only pertain to a 'negative' impact, but also to a 'positive' impact. Despite unpleasant feelings, several dentists regarded the complaint as a 'wake-up call'. Furthermore, given the relatively high number of successful mediation attempts it can be concluded that this form of complaint handling appears to be a successful way of solving problems that have arisen between patients and dentists.

Recognizing and reporting domestic violence: attitudes, experiences and behavior of Dutch dentists.

BACKGROUND: On July 1(st) 2013 the Mandatory Reporting Code Act came into force in the Netherlands, making it compulsory for health professionals to adhere to a reporting code when they suspect patients to be victims of domestic violence (DV) or child abuse (CA). The Royal Dutch Dental Association (KNMT) developed a reporting code for dental professionals (RCD). Moreover, an e-learning module about DV has been developed. A web-survey was conducted to investigate how general dental practitioners (GDPs) deal with the RCD and what their experiences are with (signs of) DV and CA. METHODS: In April 2014 1038 GDPs were invited by e-mail to participate in a web-survey consisting of 24 items, through the KNMT Data Stations Project. The data was analyzed using SPSS (RELIABILITY, CHISQ and ANOVA). RESULTS: Of all GDPs invited to participate 264 (25 %) responded. 82 % of these GDPs are aware of their obligation to use the reporting code. 54 % of the GDPs are in favor of this obligation. 76 % of the GDPs have taken notice of the KNMT's RCD and 51 % of the GDPs have implemented the reporting code in one form or another in their practice. 24 % of the GDPs stated having suspected DV during the last twelve months in the case of 2.4 patients on average. 81 % took note of this in the patient's record and 58 % also took action in different ways. 54 % wants to complete the e-learning module. CONCLUSIONS: Most GDPs are aware of the new legislation and have taken cognizance of the RCD. Even though the majority of GDPs are not opposed to using a reporting code, over half of them have not yet implemented the code in practice. An important factor in this regard seems to be that a substantial minority of the GDPs says they are not sufficiently informed about aspects of reporting a case and about the steps they have to take.