Call for ACTion: Transforming Dental Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Adams School of Dentistry is developing a transformative curriculum that prepares students to enter contemporary practice. The Advocate, Clinician, and Thinker (ACT) framework will provide the basis for developing a resilient workforce capable of meeting emerging health care needs over the next 40 years.

Characterization of school of dentistry prerequisite courses and recommendations for admission.

PURPOSE: There is minimal research characterizing admission prerequisites courses across schools of dentistry. The purpose of this study was to typify didactic and laboratory course requirements and compare requirements based on institution demographics. METHODS: In July 2019, the researchers evaluated websites from 76 North American dental schools to collect information on required and recommended courses, credit hour requirements, and institution demographics. Sub-group analyses evaluated differences in course and credit hour differences based on institution funding, degree program, location, and Carnegie Classification. RESULTS: The most common required courses were general chemistry (97.4%), physics (93.4%), organic chemistry (92.1%), general biology (90.8%), communication (86.8%), and biochemistry (80.3%). The most common required laboratory courses were general chemistry (63.2%), organic chemistry (59.2%), general biology (55.3%), and physics (51.3%). Several institutions included unique course recommendations such as histology (40.7%), psychology (30.3%), art (18.4%), business (18.4%), sociology (15.8%), and embryology (14.5%). There were few differences based on institution classifications; however, differences were observed most often between institutions within and outside the United States. The study also identified 65.8% (n = 50) of schools have letter of recommendation requirements and 46.1% (n = 35) of schools require or recommend shadowing experiences with programs requesting a median of 60 hours (range 20-300 hours). CONCLUSIONS: The study offers a contemporary characterization of prerequisite requirements and recommendations. In addition, the study raises critical questions about whether these standards reflect expectations for entering learners, if these requirements truly relate to learner success, and if these requirements prepare learners to be future-ready graduates.

"I don't think the problem's the student I think it's us": Engaging faculty in curriculum innovation.

PURPOSE: The need to innovate predoctoral dental education is well established; however, there are few recent reports to guide substantial curriculum transformation. The purpose of this study was to describe faculty perspectives on their vision of future graduates, curriculum needs, and potential barriers to a successful redesign. This information would be used to inform strategic planning for the predoctoral curriculum transformation. METHODS: Eighty full-time faculty from the University of North Carolina Adams School of Dentistry participated in 60-minute focus groups in March 2018. Focus group questions were developed to elicit perceptions about the current curriculum, what the dental graduate should know in 2040, and what is needed to engage faculty in curriculum change. Transcripts of the focus group sessions were analyzed by a third-party research group using qualitative thematic analysis to identify pertinent themes shared by participants. RESULTS: Faculty identified that developing clinical skill that engages multiple specialties, student time to engage in advocacy activities, and opportunities to integrate biomedical, clinical, and behavioral sciences as critical features of the curriculum. They believed the 2040 graduate should be able to critically evaluate literature, exhibit strong leadership skills, and adapt to the changing healthcare environment. To better engage faculty in curriculum change, there needs to be dedicated time, sufficient resources, a clear plan, and greater collaboration across the school. CONCLUSION: When embarking on curriculum transformation, engagement with faculty is a critical component of the change process. Focus groups can be used as a technique to better understand faculty perspectives about curricular needs and the overall vision.

Developing a curriculum blueprint and taxonomy: Process, progress, and pivots.

Curriculum transformations represent opportunities to innovate; however, there are few examples to inform this process. In 2018, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) Adams School of Dentistry began to transform the predoctoral curriculum to improve content integration, enhance team-based experiences, and develop leaders. Part of this experience has been crafting a conceptual curriculum guide or "blueprint" that outlines a vision for the design process and ensures the transformation achieves its goals. We describe how we created the UNC Blueprint for our revised curriculum, which defines who our graduates are, what they know, and what they can do. This approach has led us to develop a mapping taxonomy to ensure the student outcomes are appropriately aligned with content, instruction, and assessment throughout the curriculum. Last, we encourage others to be agile in their approach, create a common language among their teams, and frequently engage faculty to facilitate the process.