The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Applicants to Advanced Education in Pediatric Dentistry Programs and Recommendations for Virtual Interviews.

Purpose:To assess the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on applicants for advanced education programs in pediatric dentistry in the United States and provide recom- mendations for virtual interviews (VI).
Methods:A cross-sectional survey was emailed to pediatric dentistry applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle.
Results:One hundred seventy-five applicants responded. Virtual interviews were the universal format during this timeframe. Forty-four percent admitted to applying to programs they were not initially strongly considering and 42 percent accepted inter- views they would have declined if they had to travel. Applicants found social events with residents only (80 percent), a program overview presentation (86 percent), a virtual tour (77 percent) and a question-and-answer session with residents (85 percent) to be helpful. One-on-one or paired faculty interviews were the most preferred inter- view method. More than half (55 percent) thought programs were not able to learn about them as effectively through virtual compared to an in-person format.
Conclusions: VI caused different applicant behavior due to the low time and financial investment. Applicants valued their time with residents to learn about programs, but were split in their preferences for virtual, in-person or hybrid interviews. Programs can use findings from this study to plan future recruitment cycles.

Safety Training in US Pediatric Dentistry Advanced Education Programs: A Survey of Program Directors.

Purpose: Incorporation of patient safety and quality improvement into the educational framework of all health care trainees, including those in dentistry, is growing. The purpose of this study was to characterize the current state of patient safety training and education in US pediatric dentistry residency programs. Methods: A 19-item web-based survey was emailed to all US pediatric dentistry residency program directors in 2021. The survey collected information regarding program background, safety education, safety protocol and experience, attitudes toward safety, and potential support for safety education. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test. Results: Seventy-two directors (76 percent response rate) completed the survey. The majority felt safety education was somewhat (11 percent, N equals six) or extremely important (68 percent, N equals 49) for residents. Only six percent (N equals four) reported residents entered their program with an adequate understanding of safety science. Most (74 percent, N equals 53) taught safety science through both didactic seminars and clinical experience. Timeouts under general anesthesia (78 percent, N equals 56) and emergency simulations (72 percent, N equals 52) were more common modes of clinical safety training. Overall, a limited number of program directors had familiarity with many safety tools used to prevent adverse events. Program directors' experience with adverse events was not associated with opinions regarding the importance of safety education. The majority expressed interest in AAPD supporting safety education. Conclusions: Although program directors feel safety education is important, programs do not sufficiently address safety education and look for support to help integrate safety measures into education.

Acceptability of medical immobilization: Results from a pilot international survey.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists on the acceptability of medical immobilization (MI). AIM: To identify regulations, professional conventions, and opinions on the acceptability of MI and to identify practice patterns through a pilot study of members of the International Association of Paediatric Dentistry (IAPD) and their colleagues. DESIGN: A 22-item questionnaire was developed and electronically distributed to 1191 members of the IAPD. RESULTS: Responses were received from 182 dentists in 45 countries. The majority (74.9%) of respondents use MI, and 29.1% use an immobilization device. MI with an immobilization device was reported as professionally acceptable (58.1%) and permitted by medicolegal regulations (70.8%) in their countries of practice. Dentists rated acceptability of MI higher than they perceived parents would overall and perceived MI to be more acceptable by parents for emergency situations and for children with special healthcare needs but 19.8% of respondents found it totally unacceptable in all scenarios. Use and opinions of acceptability varied by geographical location with respondents from North America being more accepting of MI. Most dentists felt that the use of an immobilization device could lead to lasting psychological trauma (72.3%) and violation of the rights of the child (55.4%) but that it improves access to care (58.5%). CONCLUSION: The acceptability of MI remains an area of controversy for paediatric dentists internationally.