METHODS: Clinical audit learning was introduced in Year 3 of a 5-year curriculum for dental undergraduates. During classroom activities, students were briefed on clinical audit, selected their audit topics in groups of 5 or 6 students, and prepared and presented their audit protocols. One chosen topic was RCT, in which 3 different cohorts of Year 3 students conducted retrospective audits of patients' records in 2012, 2014 and 2015 for their compliance with recommended record keeping criteria and their performance in RCT. Students were trained by and calibrated against an endodontist (κ ≥ 0.8). After each audit, the findings were reported in class, and recommendations were made for improvement in performance of RCT and record keeping. Students' compliance with published guidelines was presented and their RCT performances in each year were compared using the chi-square test.
RESULTS: Overall compliance with of record keeping guidelines was 44.1% in 2012, 79.6% in 2014 and 94.6% in 2015 (P = .001). In the 2012 audit, acceptable extension, condensation and the absence of mishap were observed in 72.4, 75.7% and 91.5%; in the 2014 audit, 95.1%, 64.8% and 51.4%; and in 2015 audit, 96.4%, 82.1% and 92.8% of cases, respectively. In 2015, 76.8% of root canal fillings met all 3 technical quality criteria when compared to 48.6% in 2014 and 44.7% in 2012 (P = .001).
CONCLUSION: Clinical audit-feedback cycle is an effective educational tool for improving dental undergraduates' compliance with record keeping and performance in the technical quality of RCT.
METHODS: An online well-structured and validated faculty self-perceived competency questionnaire was used to collect responses from medical faculty. The questionnaire consisted of four purposely build sections on competence in student engagement, instructional strategy, technical communication and time management. The responses were recorded using a Likert ordinal scale (1-9). The Questionnaire was uploaded at www.surveys.google.com and the link was distributed through social media outlets and e-mails. Descriptive statistics and Independent paired t-test were used for analysis and comparison of quantitative and qualitative variables. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: A total of 738 responses were assessed. Nearly 54% (397) participants had less than 5 years of teaching experience, 24.7% (182) had 6-10 years and 11.7% (86) had 11-15 years teaching expertise. 75.6% (558) respondents have delivered online lectures during the pandemic. Asynchronous methods were used by 61% (450) and synchronous by 39% (288) of participants. Moreover, 22.4% (165) participants revealed that their online lectures were evaluated by a structured feedback from experts, while 38.3% participants chose that their lectures were not evaluated. A significant difference (p feedback was more competent in comparison to peers teaching without feedback.
Method: A cross-sectional study was carried out on a sample of medical students in their final year at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using AMOS 22 to assess construct validity. Reliability analysis was performed using SPSS 22 to assess internal consistency.
Results: A total of 159 final year medical students participated. CFA showed that the original four-factor model with 15 items achieved acceptable values for the goodness of fit indices, suggesting a good model fit (X2 = 198.295, ChiSq/df = 2.418, RMSEA = 0.095, GFI = 0.867, CFI = 0.953, NFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.940). The Cronbach's alpha values of the mentoring relationship structure, engagement, and competency support domains were 0.96, 0.90 and 0.88, respectively. For autonomy support, the Cronbach's alpha value was 0.62.
Conclusion: MBS demonstrates a satisfactory level of construct validity and a high level of internal consistency in measuring supportive mentor behaviours in a medical school setting. This result suggests that MBS can be used as a mentorship evaluation tool for feedback in the context of a Malaysian medical school.