Overcoming the Outcomes of the Silo Model: Intraprofessional Education in Dental Education by Paige Van Meeteren A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah April 25, 2022 Approved Louise R. Moulding, Ph.D. Dan Hubler, Ph.D. Shane Perry, M.Ed., RDH Shane Perry 􀒗Apr 􀑁􀑄􀑶 􀑁0􀑁􀑁 1􀑂􀑷0􀑁 MDT􀒘 Shane Perr􀁜 INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 1 Abstract Dentists and dental hygienists strive to provide the highest standards of patient care, but hierarchical identities often lead to poor collaborative care. The silo model, present in most dental and dental hygiene programs, can lead dentists and dental hygienists to misunderstand one another’s role and potential when providing patient care. As a result, dentists and dental hygienists struggle to communicate with, understand, and respect one another. Intraprofessional education (intraPE) has been researched and presented means overcome these hierarchy identities and promote teamwork in the dental field. This study focused on the intraPE experiences, understanding of the scope of practice of one another, and attitudes toward intraprofessional collaboration (intraPC) of ‘Class of 2022’ dental and dental hygiene students attending programs in Utah. It was hypothesized that students with intraPE experiences would have more positive attitudes toward intraPC. A Qualtrics survey was distributed to 200 dental and dental hygiene students. Fourteen of twenty-five participants reported participating in a variety of intraPE activities and their scope of practice task distribution leaned more toward dental hygienist-centered than expected. Narrowed down to twenty-two participants, t-test results found there were no significant differences in the attitudes toward intraPC between the participants that had reported participation in intraPE activities as compared to those that reported no participation in intraPE. Due to a small sample size, findings from this study have low statistical power, but provide insight into how this survey may be modified to further research on intraPE in dental education. Keywords: intraprofessional education, dental education, intraprofessional collaboration, dentistry INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 2 Acknowledgements My completion of this project could not have been possible without the support and guidance of Dr. Louise Moulding, my committee chair, Dr. Dan Hubler and Professor Shane Perry. I express my gratitude and appreciation for their encouragement and expertise during the duration of this project. I offer my sincere appreciation for the opportunities provided by Weber State University. In my roles as an undergraduate student, employee, student-athlete, and more, I have received immense support from all within the Weber State University community. To my coaches, Tiffany Hogan, Paul Pilkington, Corbin Talley, and Dan Walker, thank you for allowing me to pursue my educational goals while achieving my athletic dreams. I am grateful to God and His perfect timing. I am profoundly grateful to my dad for his rallying and my mom that pursued her graduate degree with me. Lastly, to my husband, I could not have done this without your unwavering love and devotion. INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 3 Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3 Nature of the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 4 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 5 The Gold Standard of Patient Care ..................................................................................... 6 Benefits of Intraprofessional Collaboration and Team-Based Care ................................... 8 Defining Intraprofessional Education ................................................................................. 9 The Silo Model in Dental Education ................................................................................ 10 Increasing Knowledge of Roles within the Profession ..................................................... 12 IntraPE in Current Education ............................................................................................ 14 CODA and IntraPE Standards .......................................................................................... 16 Clinical and Classroom Based IntraPE Activities ............................................................ 17 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 20 Instrument ................................................................................................................................. 21 Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 22 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Current IntraPE Activities ................................................................................................. 22 Understanding of Scope of Practice .................................................................................. 23 Attitudes Toward IntraPC ................................................................................................. 23 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Suggestions ............................................................................................................................... 27 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 28 References ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 33 INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 4 Nature of the Problem In order to provide the gold standard of patient care, dentists and dental hygienists must work together seamlessly and effectively in private practice settings. Both cost-effective and efficient quality oral health care is highly dependent upon successful teamwork in dental practice (Barker et al., 2018; Brame et al., 2015). The ability for dentists and dental hygienists to work collaboratively improves their quality of practice (Brame et al., 2015; Satter et al, 2020). Collaboration and teamwork within dentistry can encourage comprehensive patient care through co-assessment and co-therapy (Barker et al., 2018; Tolle et al., 2019). However, due to being educated in a silo model, dentists and dental hygienists often misunderstand the scope of practice and educational levels of one another (Brame et al., 2015; Satter et al., 2020). The silo model is the term used to describe the educational model where dentists and dental hygienists are educated separately from others in their field of practice. The misunderstanding of roles and scope of practice can pose challenges as dental professionals strive to delegate responsibilities and provide treatment for patient care. In the dental field, there is often a perceived hierarchy that complicates collaboration (Barker et al., 2018; Reinders et al., 2017). This hierarchy can lead to intraprofessional competition, polarize the relationships between dentists and dental hygienists as the distribution of tasks shifts, and be the driving force for poor teamwork (Jones et al., 2017; Reinders et al., 2017). As a result, there is often poor communication between dental professionals, a lack of interest, respect, and understanding, and dental hygienists become underutilized within the patient care setting (Jones et al., 2017; Reinders et al., 2017). Research supports intraprofessional education as a way to overcome effects of the silo model post-graduation, which promotes a better understanding of roles in the dental profession, INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 5 and improve teamwork (Brame et al., 2015; Ephrem et al., 2018; Satter et al., 2020). Intraprofessional education does not exist within most dental and dental hygiene programs (Barker et al., 2018; Brame et al., 2015; Satter et al., 2020). As a fundamental part of understanding professional roles and responsibilities, intraprofessional education provides experiences and opportunities for dental and dental hygiene students to work in team-based care within their scope of practice (Barker et al., 2018). Intraprofessional experiences increase the dental and dental hygiene students’ knowledge regarding the professional roles of others within their profession (Barker et al., 2018; Brame et al., 2015). Implementing intraprofessional education experiences into dental education, dental and dental hygiene students can grow by learning and working with one another prior to entering the workforce. Literature Review The field of dentistry includes many dental professionals that can each contribute their own set of skills and responsibilities to provide excellent patient care. Examples of these dental professionals include dentists, dental hygienists, dental therapists, dental assistants, and a wide variety of dental specialists. The level of training required and scope of practice allowed for each of these dental professionals varies by state. On average, dentists typically require a combined seven to eight years of formal undergraduate and graduate schooling, dental hygienists spend four to five years to obtain their undergraduate degree, dental therapists also spend around five years for their undergraduate degree, and, in many states, dental assistants are trained on the job or participate in a short dental assisting technical program. For the purpose of this literature review, the focus is going to be on dentists and dental hygienists, both during and after obtaining their degrees and professional licensing. INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 6 The Gold Standard of Patient Care A typical dental check-up appointment for adults includes recording a patient’s medical history and blood pressure, an intra- and extra-oral cancer screening, evaluating a chief concern, exposing radiographs, a myriad of data collection such as measuring probe depths, recession levels, and charting existing restorations, a dental cleaning, a dental exam, and much more. There are many tasks to perform in this short 30 to 60-minute appointment. In order to thoroughly and efficiently cover these tasks, a dental team must utilize a patient-centered team-based approach. A pilot study on a team-based care delivery model conducted at the University of Minnesota engaged senior students from their dental, dental hygiene, and dental therapy programs to form a Team Care Clinic (TCC) (Ephrem et al., 2018). This clinic varied from the traditional clinic groups which consisted of three dental hygienists, one dental therapist, twelve dental students, and one licensed dental assistant. The TCC had one dental student, one dental therapist, three dental hygienists, and one licensed dental assistant. All clinical sessions were the same length for both clinic groups. In the TCC group, providers started with a morning huddle to review patient needs. The dental student led the team by delegating various aspects of care to different team members to work in the most productive and efficient manner. This allowed each team member to work at their highest scope of practice. If a patient did not show up, team-members would strive to complete additional, needed treatment for a patient already receiving care in that session. In contrast, the traditional clinic groups worked on an individual basis. If their patient did not show up for their appointment, the student would go home (Ephrem et al., 2018). This pilot study by Ephrem et al. (2018) found the TCC group completed more procedures with fewer clinicians in fewer appointment times as compared to the traditional clinic INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 7 groups. The TCC completed 3.2 procedures per patient visit as compared to 2.1 and 2.0 procedures per patient visit for traditional clinic group A and B. In addition, patients reported, by post-appointment survey, higher levels of satisfaction overall for the TCC groups as compared to the traditional clinic groups. Patients felt more was accomplished during their visit than was expected, they were treated courteously by the dental providers, they were comfortable, and they understood their treatment plan (Ephrem et al., 2018). These outcomes were achieved by creating a dental team. This study supports what Formicola et al. (2012) stated when exploring interprofessional education and intraprofessional education at dental schools in the United States and Canada. Teamwork in the dental practice created cost-effective, efficient quality health care. Unfortunately, in the Formicola et al. study, no schools reported any best practices for collaboration between dental students and dental hygiene students or any students in the allied dental health workforce. The goals of intraprofessional and interprofessional education should be similar (Formicola et al., 2012). From this study, Formicola et al. (2012) recommended renewed attention be brought to dental education to promote intraprofessional collaboration and team-based care within the dental workforce. Regarding patient satisfaction, both Ephrem et al. (2018) and Jones et al. (2017) found team-based care produced positive patient experiences. Patients were highly accepting and universally satisfied with their team-based oral care experience. For ten of the twelve criteria, the mean satisfaction score was the maximum score of 5.00+0.00. The other two criteria mean satisfaction scores were nearly maxed out at 4.77+0.97 and 4.94+0.24 (Jones et al., 2017). For patients participating in the study from Ephrem et al. (2018), patients rated the TCC teams higher INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 8 in efficiency, timeliness, courteousness, patient understanding, and satisfaction as compared to the CCC. Benefits of Intraprofessional Collaboration and Team-Based Care The desired outcomes of intraprofessional collaboration (intraPC) and team-based care are the same. Hamson-Utley et al. (2020) refer to intraPC outcomes as the “Quadruple Aim.” This term was used to describe the framework that utilizes teams to improve the patient experience of care, improve the health of populations, reduce the cost of health care, and improve provider work life aim (Hamson-Utley et al., 2020). Similarly, team-based care aims to provide better quality of care, lower costs of quality care, and improve workplace satisfaction (Grumbach & Bodenheimer, 2004). Effective intraPC is evaluated through four core competencies. These competencies have been identified as values and ethics, roles and responsibilities, interprofessional communication, and teams and teamwork (Hamson-Ultey et al., 2020). The competency of value and ethics is defined by IPEC (2016) as working with individuals to maintain a climate of mutual respect and share values. Roles and responsibility refers to the use of knowledge and one’s own role with the roles and knowledge of others to access and address the health care needs of patients and to promote and advance the health of populations (IPEC, 2016). Communication with patients, families, communities, and professionals in health and other fields in a responsive and responsible manner that supports a team approach to the promotion and maintenance of health and the prevention and treatment of disease describes interprofessional communication (IPEC, 2016). Lastly, teams and teamwork is interpreted as applying “relationship-building values and the principles of team dynamics to perform effectively in various teams roles to plan, deliver, and evaluate patient-centered care and INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 9 population health programs and policies that are safe, timely, efficient, effective, and equitable" (IPEC, 2016). Minimal research has been conducted on intraPC in the dental field outside of education however, the principals of intraPC are universal and the outcomes aim to be the same regardless of being a in the medical or dental profession. As a result, exploring the benefits of intraPC in the medical setting can provide insight to the benefits that intraPC can bring to the dental setting. An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association highlighted multiple studies that associated team-based care to better quality of care and better outcome for patients. The article identified five key features in team building from the multiple studies cited. These five key elements are clear goals with measurable outcomes, clinical and administrative systems, division of labor, training, and communication (Grumbach & Bodenheimer, 2004). These key elements fall in line with the four core competencies for IntraPC, values and ethics, roles and responsibilities, interprofessional communication, and teams and teamwork (Hamson- Ultey et al., 2020). IntraPC is central to the gold standard of patient care and can be achieved by teaching these competencies and elements to future dental providers in their pre-licensure educational settings through intraprofessional education. Defining Intraprofessional Education Intraprofessional education (IntraPE) refers to learning settings in which students from different disciplines within the same profession learn from, about, and with each other in order to build teamwork, communication skills, and understanding of one anothers’ role (Barker et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2017). Within intraPE, educators and instructors aid students in sharing common goals, understanding each other’s roles, demonstrating respect for each other, using clear communication, resolving conflict effectively, and being flexible. Students learn how to INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 10 develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to collaborate (Barker et al., 2018). More than learning beside one another, students practice how to work interdependently and collaboratively in order to maximize the use of one another’s strengths and skills (Barker et al., 2018; Sargeant et al., 2008). The goal for intraPE is intraPC which helps all healthcare professionals provide the best care for their patients (Barker et al., 2018; Brame et al., 2015; Ephrem et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2017; Satter et al., 2020). To achieve this lofty goal, intraPE aims to have clear learning objectives and outcomes in order to guide all learners to participate in collaborative experiences (Barker et al., 2018). Often, these objectives and outcomes have aided in breaking down the hierarchies and structures that prevent intraPC (Barker et al., 2018). Overall, intraPE must create opportunities for students to learn about, from, and with each other. These programs should be rooted in theory and have formal assessments to track the progress of students (Barker et al., 2018). The Silo Model in Dental Education Dentists and dental hygienists are rarely educated together (Furgeson et al., 2015) resulting in what is referred to as a silo model and often leads to misunderstanding of the scope of practice and educational levels of one another within the medical and dental field (Brame et al., 2015; Satter et al., 2020). It can also promote hierarchical identities and negative stereotypes of others within the profession (Satter et al., 2020). These misconceptions can lead to polarization within the dental practice and decrease effectiveness of patient outcomes (Reinders et al., 2017). Research supports intraPE as a way to overcome the silo model, promote a better understanding of roles, and improve teamwork (Brame et al., 2015; Ephrem et al., 2018; Satter et INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 11 al., 2020). The perceptions of dentists and dental hygienists are varied when it comes to task distribution. These perceptions may be linked to the perceived professional identity. For example, historically, prophylaxis is a core task of dental hygienists and cariologic-related tasks are core tasks of the dentist. Tasks in dentistry may have a deeper symbolic and distinctive meaning that dental professionals use to define their identity (Reinders et al., 2017). Team interventions and intraPE programs have produced a shift in perceived task distribution and can promote task shifting. This shift has moved toward a more integrated approach to care. Dental and dental hygiene students have recognized a greater overlap in task distribution and the benefits of all dental team members in providing patient care (Brame et al., 2015; Ephrem et al., 2018; Reinders et al., 2017, Satter et al., 2020). Early implementation of intraPE has shown to prevent silo identities which often create negative stereotypes toward other health professions (Satter et al., 2020). It is thought that continuous intraPE experiences can be key to breaking down the need for the dominant profession to focus on protection of their occupational boundaries, but minimal research has been conducted on long-term intraPE and intraPC programs (Reinders et al., 2017). Students who have participated in intraPE experiences have reported positive attitudes toward and the benefits of intraPE in preparing them for intraPC outside of dental and dental hygiene school (Satter et al., 2020). The ability to communicate, distribute tasks effectively throughout members of their team, and understand the role of other dental team members in patient care improved through the intraPC (Ephrem et al., 2018; McComas & Inglehart, 2016; Satter et al., 2020). Students who had not had the opportunity to participate in intraPE experiences expressed their desire for these types of programs in their educational experience. Students recognized the benefit of intraPC outside of dental and dental hygiene school and INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 12 reported not feeling prepared to enter the workforce without those experiences (Brame et al., 2015). Increasing Knowledge of Roles within the Profession Intraprofessional experiences aid to increase the student’s knowledge regarding the professional roles of others within their profession (Barker et al., 2018; Brame et al., 2015). In a study conducted by Brame et al. (2015), dental and dental hygiene students indicated that they were aware of their own professional roles, but they misunderstand the roles of their team members. These results were found through conducting several focus groups. Focus groups in this study were separated into a group of first year dental hygiene students, second year dental hygiene students, and fourth year dental students. All groups acknowledged their lack of understanding of the roles of other members of the oral health care team. The dental students were apprehensive about running a private practice with lack of knowledge on the duties their dental hygienists could perform. On the other hand, the dental hygiene students felt like dental students had no idea what dental hygienists do (Brame et al., 2015). Reinders et al., (2017) shed more light on this disconnect with a survey conducted on perceived task distribution. In this survey, dental and dental hygiene students were asked to complete a questionnaire rank tasks within the scope of practice of both dentists and dental hygienists on a nine-point scale as 1=belongs only to the dental hygienist to 5= just as much as task of the dentists and the dental hygienists to 9=belongs only to the dentist. Results from this questionnaire found dental and dental hygienist students perceive dentists’ and dental hygienists’ scope of practice differently (Reinders et al., 2017) – further illuminating why dentists and dental hygienists face challenges with communication, teamwork, and hierarchal identities in private practice. INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 13 Of those who have participated in intraPE programs, students have reported the benefit of seeing how the other professionals in the dental field are educated and trained. Students that participated in the study conducted by Reinders et al. (2015) participated in a clinical intraPE experience following the questionnaire regarding perceived task distribution. This experience split students into teams of five to six members. All teams were asked to develop a collaborative practice through team development tasks. Each team received standardized feedback. Following the intraPE experience, students retook the questionnaire regarding perceived task distribution. The post questionnaire indicated more dental students changed their perceived task distribution and were more likely to see tasks as shared with the dental hygienist than before the intervention (Reinders et al., 2015). In an additional mixed-methods study, Satter et al. (2020) followed up with students from the University of Washington School of Dentistry (UWSOD) from years 2012-2017. Out of these dental students, some participated in the Regional Initiative in Dental Education (RIDE) program and others were non-RIDE students. RIDE students took didactic courses with dental hygiene students, worked with them on teams for research projects, case studies and exams, and were allowed two clinical sessions to watch dental hygiene students provide periodontal therapy. Open-ended survey responses highlighted how RIDE participants attribute positive team dynamics in their current practice to their intraPE experiences in the RIDE program. It was found that the RIDE program (and other intraPE programs) can provide role-blurring which leads to a shared workload. Role-blurring acts as a way to prevent silo identities, breakdown clinical hierarchies, and diminish negative stereotypes (Satter et al., 2020). These intraPE experiences provided understanding in the roles that others in the profession can hold and encouraged team members to work effectively together. Dentists and dental hygienists have learned how to pull INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 14 from one another's knowledge base to provide effective and efficient patient care (Rosenfield et al., 2011; Satter et al., 2020). IntraPE in Current Education IntraPE does not exist at most dental and dental hygiene institutions (Barker et al., 2018; Brame et al., 2015; Satter et al., 2020). In a survey distributed by Furgeson et al. (2015) to 322 United States dental hygiene program directors, 28% of dental hygiene programs reported having joint intraPE activities with dental schools. In addition to this small number of dental hygiene programs with joint intraPE activities, many of the perceived activities do not fit the definition of intraPE. According to Furgeson and Inglehart (2017), “true intraprofessional education activities incorporate shared work in clinical patient care, and are embedded across the curriculum” (p. 11). The most reported intraPE activity was service/volunteer activities (Formicola et al., 2012; Furgeson & Inglehart, 2017; Furgeson et al., 2015). Questions have arisen whether these activities were mandatory, if they fit the definition of true intraPE, and if they focus on the Quadruple Aim. Other activities included clinical activities, service-learning projects, basic science courses, and communication training (Formicola el al., 2012). These reported activities could serve as quality intraPE experiences if they were planned with the four core competencies and Quadruple Aim as a guide. However, without explicit standards set by the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA), the quality and type of intraPE is diminished to include many activities that may not fit the true standard of intraPE (Furgeson et al., 2015). The outcome of implicit standards has been unclear and dental and dental hygiene programs have misinterpreted what quality intraPE experiences look like (Furgeson & Inglehart, 2017). INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 15 Attitudes Toward IntraPE. Attitudes toward intraPE are a vital component in the success of the implementation of intraPE. The example set by faculty members has impacted the outcomes of intraPE (Tolle et al., 2019). Over half (57%) of dental hygiene program directors reported positive attitudes toward intraPE and view this form of collaboration as imperative to dental hygiene practice (Furgeson et al., 2015). However, despite believing intraPE was important to the profession of dental hygiene, less than half (40%) of the dental hygiene program directors saw intraPE as important at their institution (Furgeson et al., 2015). IntraPE standards are not explicitly stated in the standards set by CODA. This could play a role in why there is a disconnect between the attitudes of the value of intraPE for the profession as compared to the value of implementing intraPE at the institution (Furgeson & Inglehart, 2017). Many dental hygiene educators have had favorable attitudes toward intraPE in the academic setting (Furgeson et al., 2015; Tolle et al., 2019). These educators supported the use of intraPC in healthcare and agreed that collaboration between professions improves patient care decisions and the efficiency of patient care delivery. Almost all respondents (95%) in the survey conducted by Tolle et al. (2019) believed intraPE could improve patient care decisions. As a result, educators desired more emphasis of intraPE for their students (Tolle et al., 2019). Dental schools throughout the United States also recognized the importance of intraPE (Furgeson et al., 2015). Barriers for IntraPE. Though the attitudes toward intraPE are generally positive, dental hygiene and dental faculty reported a plethora of barriers to implementing intraPE. Barriers included schedule coordination, curriculum overload, lack of educational resources, calibration and training of faculty, and outcome assessments (Barker et al., 2018; Furgeson & Inglehart, 2017; Furgeson et al., 2015; Tolle et al., 2019). Due to geographic location differences, in-person INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 16 intraPE is a challenge and is often reported as the largest barrier to overcome (Jones et al., 2017). Barriers also varied between program types. Programs that offered an associate’s degree and programs outside of a dental school reported facing more challenges with educational resources to provide intraPE (Tolle et al., 2019). Many faculty members have limited expertise and experience required to successfully facilitate intraPE (Furgeson et al., 2015; Hamson-Utley et al., 2020). This lack of experience feeds into a lack of confidence and promotes a negative perception of intraPE. Faculty require calibration and training just as students do in order to succeed in providing quality intraPE (Hamson-Utley et al., 2020). In addition to quality training for faculty members, all members involved in intraPE need a way to assess the outcomes of their efforts (Furgeson & Inglehart, 2017). Due to the newness of intraPE in the dental profession, faculty and curriculum development are still working to meet the needs of students and educators (Furgeson & Inglehart, 2017). CODA and IntraPE Standards IntraPE standards are not explicitly stated in the standards set by CODA (Furgeson & Inglehart, 2017). Regarding curriculum overload, since intraPE standards are only implicitly stated in the standards set by CODA for Dental Hygiene Education Programs, educators have leaned toward prioritizing their time on the explicitly stated standards (Furgeson & Inglehart, 2017). When comparing the CODA standards for dental and dental hygiene, the verbiage between the standards for the two disciplines regarding intraprofessional and interprofessional education vary greatly. The CODA dental standard 1-9 states dental schools “must show evidence of interaction with other components of the higher education, health care education and/or health care delivery systems” (Commission on Dental Accreditation [CODA], 2020, p. INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 17 22). On the other hand, the CODA dental hygiene standard states students “should… have educational experiences that involve working with other health-care professional students and practitioners” (CODA, 2019, p. 26). This verbiage has demonstrated a variable level of accountability in accreditation standards between the two professionals. A lack of defined and explicit standards in relation to intraPE may give insight as to why only 58% of dental schools reported intraPE activities with dental hygiene programs (Furgeson et al., 2015). The current CODA standards may also help describe why the dental and dental hygiene programs that implement intraPE reported volunteer activities and service-projects as most of their joint activities (Furgeson et al., 2015). Clinical and Classroom Based IntraPE Activities As a fundamental part of understanding professional roles and responsibilities, intraPE in dentistry provides clinical-based or classroom-based activities comprising participation from dental students, dental hygiene students, dental assisting students, and more to practice team-based care within their scope of practice (Barker et al., 2018; Furgeson et al., 2015). IntraPE has a history of being misinterpreted to include activities that do not fit the true definition of intraPE (Furgeson et al., 2015). It is important for dental educators to focus on the four core competencies of true intraPE; collaborative practice, values and ethics, roles and responsibilities, and communication and teamwork (Tolle et al., 2019). True intraPE can be delivered in a variety of ways. Some of these true intraPE experiences include joint classroom time where dental and dental hygiene students are placed in teams and work together on team-based assignments (Hamson-Utley et al., 2020). These types of experiences are excellent to teach conflict management between the professions (Hamson-Utley et al., 2020). The team intervention in the study conducted by Reinders et al. (2017) demonstrated an effective classroom-based intraPE INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 18 experience. This example of an intervention required team tasks to create a collaborative practice including “an intraprofessional mission statement, guidelines for task a role division, a plan to set up practice space, a marking plan, a legislation protocol, and a collaboration protocol” (Reinders et al., 2017). The teams also received feedback on team dynamics (intraprofessional equality), efficiency, and quality of work (Reinders et al., 2017). This team invention achieved shift in perceived task distribution and promoted teamwork. It hit all four core competencies and sought to fulfill the Quadruple Aim. Classroom-based intraprofessional activities may be easier to implement due to the option of virtual learning to overcome geographical challenges (Hamson- Utley et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2017). Clinical-based intraPE experiences are often the highest valued experiences from a student’s perspective (Brame et al., 2015; Satter et al., 2020). When true intraPE is implemented clinically, it is also designed to improve intraPC through the four core compentencies and accomplish the Quadruple Aim. In this setting, students can translate their cognitive skills into clinical practice while utilizing other members of the dental team to solve problems and best treat their patients (Hamson-Utley et al., 2020). As previously described, the team-based care delivery system utilized in the study conducted by Ephrem et al., (2018) effectively focused on the four core competencies of intraPE. These students worked as a team with their defined roles and responsibilities to focus their efforts on patient-centered care. They reported mutual respect and trust between one another and feelings of shared achievement as they adopted the mantra “Our Patient” while they worked together (Ephrem et al., 2018). Clinical-based intraPE may be the most difficult to implement due to geographic barriers (Jones et al., 2017). The design, approach, management to intraPE experiences can be varied to meet the needs of each program and the students (Formicola et al., 2012). However, the focus on the four INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 19 core competencies and Quadruple Aim to appears to remain the same to produce quality intraPE (Hamson-Utley et al., 2020). Research and reports on best practices for intraPE in dentistry are little to none. Therefore, more research and focus is needed in this area (Formicola et al., 2012). Quality, cost-effective, and efficient oral care depends on teamwork in the dental practice (Barker et al., 2018; Brame et al., 2015; Formicola et al., 2012). Purpose As the need for intraPC increases in the dental field, the need for intraPE in dental and dental hygiene school becomes imperative. IntraPE aids dental and dental hygiene students in building core skills to bring to the workforce that will help dimmish the effects the silo model has had on patient care. IntraPE can prepare students to provide the gold standard of patient care in their future practice. Research has shown a lack of intraPE focused programs throughout the nation. Students that do not have the opportunity to learn with other professionals inside their discipline report feeling unprepared for collaborating with these same individuals once in the workforce. With two dental schools and six dental hygiene programs in the state of Utah, research needed to be conducted on if students from these programs were prepared for intraPC in the workforce upon graduation. Specifically, the objectives for this project are to determine: 1. What intraPE activities are currently taking place at dental and dental hygiene learning institutions in Utah? 2. What do upcoming dental and dental hygiene graduates from these programs understand about the scope of practice and role of each other in their profession? 3. What are the attitudes of upcoming dental and dental hygiene graduates from these programs toward intraPC upon entering the workforce? INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 20 Based on existing research, it is hypothesized that students that have participated in intraPE are likely to have positive attitudes toward intraPC upon entering the workforce. Methods To address the purpose of this study, a web-based survey approach was designed to gather quantitative and qualitative data concerning intraPE in dental and dental hygiene programs in Utah (see Appendix B). The web-based survey approach was used because it was both convenient for respondents and efficient in gathering data. Web-based surveys are also cost-effective and allow for respondents to respond on their own time. The researcher received IRB approval to distribute, collect, and analyze data for this study (see Appendix A). The researcher of this study recruited participants by asking staff in the dental and dental hygiene programs in the state of Utah to send out a mass email to their final year students with a link to the survey. Participants Participants for this study were recruited based on their enrollment in a dental or dental hygiene program in Utah and how close they were to graduating from their program. Specifically, students in their final year of their dental or dental hygiene program were recruited. Program directors from University of Utah School of Dentistry agreed to distribute the survey to their ‘Class of 2022’ dental students. Weber State University, Utah Valley University, Dixie State University, Salt Lake Community College, and Fortis College agreed to distribute the survey to their ‘Class of 2022’ dental hygiene students. The survey was distributed to approximately 200 students. Out of the 200 surveys distributed, there were 29 respondents (26 dental hygiene students and 3 dental students). Out of the 29 participants, five were eliminated due to incomplete surveys. The remaining 24 respondents came from the following programs: Utah Valley INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 21 University (13), Weber State University (7), University of Utah School of Dentistry (2), Fortis College (1), and Dixie State University (1). The participant pool was narrowed to 22 students for the purpose of conducting an independent sample t-test for results to research question 3 and the related hypothesis. The two participants eliminated were the two dental students due to limited sample size. Participants had varying year of experience in the field of dentistry prior to their educational experience within their respective programs. Years of experiences were reported as: Less than 1 year (6), 1-3 years (11), 3-5 years (4), 5-7 years (1), and 7-10 years (2). Instrument The framework of the survey was developed by taking portions of surveys from several studies. Formicola et al. (2012) conducted a survey on interPE activities. A portion of this survey was used to gather data on the intraPE activities taking place at the dental and dental hygiene programs in Utah. This portion of the survey provided a list of intraPE activities for respondents to select and an additional question if “other” activities are selected. A survey from Reinders et al (2017) evaluating the perceptions of the scope of practice and roles of dental and dental hygienists was utilized to evaluate if there are differences in the perceptions of those upcoming graduates that participated in IntraPE compared to those who did not. This survey involved ranking tasks as dentist or dental hygienist centered on a 9-point scale, with 1= belongs only to the dental hygienist, 5= just as much a task of dentists as dental hygienists, 9 = belongs only to the dentist. The final portion of the survey was based on a portion of a survey distributed by Satter et al. (2020) regarding attitudes toward teamwork and roles and responsibilities. This portion of the survey was asked on a 5-point Likert scale. Modifications to this survey included INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 22 adding questions to evaluate readiness of upcoming graduates to apply intraPC skills and the exclusion of questions based on their attitudes toward intraPE. Procedure Contact was made to all dental and dental hygiene programs in Utah for permission to distribute the survey. The survey was piloted by current practicing dentist and dental hygienists. The survey was distributed to the contact point of each program via email. The email was distributed to their upcoming graduates for 2022 through the contact point of each program. Data was collected using Qualtrics. The data was downloaded from Qualtrics as an Excel file and imported into SPSS. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, means, standard deviations were utilized to provide demographics and an overview for objectives one and two. Data for objective three was analyzed utilizing an independent sample t-test to determine if attitudes toward intraPC differed between those that reported participation in intraPE as compared to those that reported no participation in intraPE. The level of statistical significance was set at p=0.05. Results Current IntraPE Activities The survey found 14 respondents had been participating in intraPE activities during their time within their respective programs. IntraPE activities reported were clinical activities (10), basic science courses (7), communication training (7), service-learning projects (7), medical emergency or patient safety interactions (7), ethics classes (7), joint volunteer activities (6), review of evidence-based practice activities (6), evaluation of health systems across and delivery of care (6), and standardized patient programs (5). Two additional open-ended responses for intraPE activities were reported by respondents. These responses were referral of patients (1) and INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 23 going to the capital to learn about how they can play a role in advancing their career (1). 10 respondents reported they had not participated in any intraPE activities. Understanding of Scope of Practice Regarding scope of practice, on average respondents reported preventative tasks (3.58±1.41), periodontal radiograph (3.66±1.46), and periodontal diagnosis (3.17±1.76) slightly more dental hygienist-centered tasks. Tasks such as periodic oral evaluation (6.46±1.61) and cariologic diagnosis (7.54±1.47) were both more dentist-centered tasks on average. On average, dental hygienist-centered tasks included teeth cleaning (1.67±1.09) and periodontal treatment (1.92±1.31). On average, cariologic treatment (8.08±1.47) was the only task considered dentist-centered. Both cariologic radiograph (5.16±1.68) and local anesthesia (5.13±0.61) were, on average, reported as shared tasks. Attitudes Toward IntraPC Due to a limited sample size for dental students, the two dental student responses were eliminated for this portion of the data analysis. The sample size for the independent sample t-test was 22 dental hygiene students. Out of these 22 participants, 12 reported participation in intraPE and 10 reported no participation in intraPE. An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the difference in agreement levels on the following nine items: • Patients benefit when dentists and dental hygienists work together to solve problems. • I feel confident in my ability to work with dentists to solve problems. • Dentists and dental hygienists should learn team-working skills. • I feel confident in my ability to work as a team with dentists. • Dentists and dental hygienists need to trust and respect each other. • I can voice my insights to the dentist to solve clinical problems. INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 24 • Dentists have more knowledge and skills than dental hygienists. • The primary function of a dental hygienist is to provide support and assistance to the dentist. • I acknowledge my own clinical limitations. The independent sample t-test regarding attitudes toward intraPC based on participation in intraPE illuminated no significant differences between the participants that had reported participation in intraPE activities as compared to those that reported no participation in intraPE. On average, participants reported positive attitudes toward intraPC (see Table 1). Table 1. Attitudes Toward IntraPC Statements Participation in intraPE Mean Standard deviation T P Patients benefit when dentists and dental hygienists work together to solve problems* Yes (12) No (10) 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 I feel confident in my ability to work with dentists to solve problems. Yes (12) No (10) 1.33 1.20 0.422 0.674 0.508 Dentists and dental hygienists should learn team-working skills.* Yes (12) No (10) 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 I feel confident in my ability to work as a team with dentists. Yes (12) No (10) 1.33 1.30 0.492 0.483 0.159 0.875 Dentists and dental hygienists need to trust and respect each other.* Yes (12) No (10) 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 I can voice my insights to the dentist to solve clinical problems. Yes (12) No (10) 1.42 1.70 0.515 0.483 -1.321 0.201 Dentists have more knowledge and skills than dental hygienists. Yes (12) No (10) 3.25 2.80 1.288 1.135 0.86 0.400 INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 25 The primary function of a dental hygienist is to provide support and assistance to the dentist. Yes (12) No (10) 3.50 3.60 1.446 1.265 -0.171 0.866 I acknowledge my own clinical limitations. Yes (12) No (10) 1.17 1.00 0.389 0.000 1.348 0.193 Note. This table represents results based on a Likert-scale with 1=strongly agree to 5=strongly disagree. *t-test cannot be computed because the standard deviations of both groups are 0. Discussion Due to a small sample size, results from this study do not have enough statistical power to be generalized. From the limited sample size, it was shown that slightly over half the students participating in the survey report participating in intraPE activities. These results were not standard while comparing between universities and programs. This could mean students within their programs are underreporting because they are not aware of the intraPE experiences they are having, or it could mean the opposite, that students are overreporting their experiences and did not fully understand the difference between intraPE and interPE. Either way, many participants reported intraPE clinical activities which is often the highest ranked form of intraPE from students (Brame et al., 2015; Satter et al., 2020). Clinical intraPE provides opportunities for students to translate the knowledge they are gaining in the classroom into clinical skills while practicing with other members of the dental team (Hamson-Utley et al., 2020). A study alone could be conducted to evaluate these clinical intraPE activities and how closely they are aligning with the Quadruple Aim. Regarding scope of practice, the results on perceived tasks distribution came mostly from dental hygiene students (22) and a couple of dental students (2). Having more input from dental students may have swayed a few of the tasks closer to the dentist-centered tasks. Without enough INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 26 data from dental students, results could not be compared between dental hygiene students and dental students. In turn, it is difficult to explore how dental and dental hygiene students in Utah may view one another’s role within the dental office differently. The results reveal that the small sample size views the administration of local anesthesia as a shared task which in line with the scope of practice for these clinicians in Utah. Dental hygienists also are permitted to perform prophylaxis (teeth cleaning), scaling and root planing to treat periodontal disease, preventative tasks, and take dental radiographs to detect for caries and periodontal disease. Dentists are permitted to perform all the previously mentioned tasks as well as restorative work for caries, periodic oral examinations, and caries and periodontal diagnosis according to their scope of practice. The with tasks such as periodic oral evaluation and periodontal diagnosis falling respectively under the slightly-dentist centered and slight-dental hygienist centered tasks, the results demonstrate some role-blurring as a few of the tasks that fall outside of the scope of practice of dental hygienists, lean to be less dentist-centered than would have been expected. As previously mentioned, tasks in dentistry often have deep distinctive meanings that dentists and dental hygienists utilized to define their identity (Reinders et al., 2017). Without having many responses from dental students, the results of the traditionally dentist-centered tasks may be shifted. There is a fine line between role blurring as compared to task shifting which ensures dental professionals remain within their scope of practice while working to diminish silo identities. In future studies, more data from dental students’ needs to be collected to gain a better understanding whether those silo identities are shifting from both sides of the profession. Lastly, the attitudes toward intraPC were positive overall. Dental hygiene students felt it was important for dentists and dental hygienists to build teamwork, respect, and to work together. These are valuable intraPC skills (Hamson-Utley et al., 2020). However, the small INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 27 sample size and exclusion of dentists from this portion of the results restricts the ability to determine if all dental and dental hygiene students in Utah are entering the workforce feeling positive about intraPC. Though there were no significant differences between those that had reported participating in intraPE and their attitudes toward intraPC, the results give insight as to more questions that could be asked in future surveys. Interestingly, despite having less formal schooling then dental students, dental hygiene students did not feel that dental students had more knowledge and skills than them. Future surveys could include questions focusing more narrowly on types, frequency, and quality of intraPE. Additionally, questions about frequency of discussion of intraPC within courses could also be addressed in future surveys. Suggestions If this survey was to be distributed again, researchers should avoid distribution of the survey during board examination timeframes for students as this may have limited the number of responses. Frequent reminders during the survey timeframe may also increase response rate. Being a niche population, extending the distribution of surveys to programs outside the state of Utah could not only increase the response rate, but also provide more insight as to how implementation of intraPE and outcomes of intraPC are effecting students entered the workforce thoughout the United States. Future research in this area also has potential to be narrowed down. Each objective explored should be developed into their own surveys. The survey about current intraPE activities should be distributed to dental and dental hygiene program directors to get more accurate details the activities taking place within their programs. Additional questions on the type, quality, and frequency of intraPE should be integrated into this survey. For a survey on exploring the understanding of the roles and scope of practice, a longer duration survey would be beneficial INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 28 with a pre-test and post-test. Between the pre-test and post-test, some form of intraPE should take place to compare if participation in intraPE shifted their views toward one another. Similarly, the survey portion regarding the attitudes toward intraPC should also take place over a longer duration with a pre-test, followed by intraPE experiences, and a post-test. Conclusion Due to a small sample size with low statistical power, results from this survey did not yield similar results to other studies conducted on intraPE and intraPC. Further research on quality and type of intraPE, scope of practice, and attitudes toward intraPC is still needed in the field of dentistry to improve the quality of patient care. Previous research supports intraPE as a way to overcome the silo model and lead to intraPC. INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 29 References Barker, T. S., Smith, C. A., Waguespack, G. M., Mercante, D. E., & Gunaldo, T. P. (2018). Collaborative skill building in dentistry and dental hygiene through intraprofessional education: Application of a quality improvement model. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 92(5), 14-2. https://jdh.adha.org/content/jdenthyg/92/5/14.full.pdf Brame, J. L., Mitchell, S. H., Wilder, R. S., & Sams, L. D. (2015). Dental and allied dental students’ attitudes towards and perceptions of intraprofessional education. Journal of Dental Education, 79(6), 616-625. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022- 0337.2015.79.6.tb05933.x Commission of Dental Accreditation. (2019). Accreditation Standards for Dental Hygiene Education Programs. Retrieved from https://www.ada.org/~/media/CODA/Files/dental_hygiene_standards.pdf?la=en Commission of Dental Accreditation. (2020). Accreditation Standards for Dental Education Programs. Retrieved from https://www.ada.org/~/media/CODA/Files/predoc_standards.pdf?la=en Ephrem, H., Self, K. D., & Blue, C. M. (2018). Introducing and evaluating intraprofessional team-based care delivery in a dental school clinic: A pilot study. Journal of Dental Education, 82(9), 980-988. https://doi.org/10.21815/JDE.018.093 Formicola, A. J., Andrieu, S. C., Buchanan, J. A., Childs, G. S., Gibbs, M., Inglehart, M. R., Habil, P., Kalenderian, E., Pyle, M. A., D’Abreu, K., & Evans, L. (2012). Interprofessional education in U.S. and Canadian dental schools: An ADEA team study group report. Journal of Dental Education. 76(9), 1250-168. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2012.76.9.tb05381.x INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 30 Furgeson, D., & Inglehart, M. R. (2017). Interprofessional education in dental hygiene programs and CODA standards: Dental hygiene program directors' perspectives. The Journal of Dental Hygiene, 91(2), 6-14. https://jdh.adha.org/content/jdenthyg/91/2/6.full.pdf Furgeson, D., Kinney, J. S., Gwozdek, A. E., Wilder, R., & Inglehart, M. R. (2015). Interprofessional education in U.S. dental hygiene programs: A national survey. Journal of Dental Education, 79(11), 1286-1294. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/153608/jddj0022033720157911t t06024x.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Grumbach, K., & Bodenheimer, T. (2004). Can health care teams improve primary care practice?. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(10), 1246-1251. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.10.1246 Hamson-Utley, J., Mathena, C. K., & Gunaldo, T. (2020). Interprofessional education and collaboration: An evidence-based approach to optimizing health care. Human Kinetics, Incorporated. Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC). (2016) Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: 2016 update. IPEC. Jones, V. E., Karydis, A., & Hottel, T. L. (2017). Dental and dental hygiene intraprofessional education: A pilot program and assessment of students’ and patients’ satisfaction. Journal of Dental Education, 81(10), 1203-1212. https://doi.org/10.21815/JDE.017.058 INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 31 McComas, M. J., & Inglehart, M. R. (2016). Dental, dental hygiene, and graduate students’ and faculty perspectives on dental hygienists’ professional role and the potential contribution of a peer teaching program. Journal of Dental Education, 80(9), 1049-1061. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/153742/jddj002203372016809tb 06187x.pdf?sequence=1 Reinders, J. J., Krijnen, W. P., Stegenga, B., & van der Schans, C. P. (2017). Perceived dentist and dental hygienist task distribution after dental and dental hygiene students’ team intervention. Journal of Dental Education, 81(4), 413-419. doi: 10.21815/JDE.016.009 Rosenfield, D., Oandasan, I., & Reeves, S. (2011). Perceptions versus reality: a qualitative study of students’ expectations and experiences of interprofessional education. Medical Education, 45, 471-477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03883.x Satter, K. E. G., Jackson, S. C., DiMarco, A. C., & Nagasawa, P. R. (2020). Intraprofessional education with dental hygienists: The post training impact on dentists. Journal of Dental Education, 84, 991-998. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12182 Tolle, S. L., Vernon, M. M., McCombs, G., & De Leo, G. (2019). Interprofessional education in dental hygiene: Attitudes, barriers and practices of program faculty. The Journal of Dental Hygiene, 93(2), 13-22. https://jdh.adha.org/content/jdenthyg/93/2/13.full.pdf INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 32 Appendix A From: do-not-reply@cayuse.com Subject: IRB-AY21-22-258 - Initial: COE Exempt Date: February 25, 2022 at 2:42 PM To: lmoulding@weber.edu, paigevanmeeteren@mail.weber.edu February 25, 2022 Louise Moulding Paige Van Meeteren Students, Teacher Education Re: Exempt - Initial - IRB-AY21-22-258 Overcoming the Outcomes of the Silo Model: Intraprofessional Education in Dental Education Dear Louise Moulding: The Weber State University Institutional Review Board has rendered the decision below for Overcoming the Outcomes of the Silo Model: Intraprofessional Education in Dental Education. Decision: Exempt Approval: February 25, 2022 Selected Category: Category 2.(ii). Research that only includes interactions involving educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior (including visual or auditory recording). Any disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research would not reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, educational advancement, or reputation. Findings: Check your recruitment email for grammatical errors. Research Notes: Subjects are considered adults, signatures/consent are required, and they may choose not to participate. Anonymity and confidentiality are addressed appropriately, and the type of information gathered could not "reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation" (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46, Subpart D). You may proceed at this time; you have one year to complete the study. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the IRB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the IRB and possible suspension of the project. If you have any question please contact your review committee chair or irb@weber.edu. Sincerely, Natalie Williams, Ph.D. Chair, College of Education IRB Sub-committee Weber State Institutional Review BoardINTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 33 I􀁑􀁉􀁒􀁕􀁐􀁈􀁇 C􀁒􀁑􀁖􀁈􀁑􀁗 IRB STUDY #AY21-22-258 􀀺EBE􀀵 􀀶􀀷A􀀷E 􀀸NI􀀹E􀀵􀀶I􀀷􀀼 INFO􀀵MED CON􀀶EN􀀷 O􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁗􀁋􀁈 O􀁘􀁗􀁆􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁖 􀁒􀁉 􀁗􀁋􀁈 􀀶􀁌􀁏􀁒 M􀁒􀁇􀁈􀁏: I􀁑􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁉􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁄􀁏 E􀁇􀁘􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 􀁌􀁑 D􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁄􀁏 E􀁇􀁘􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 Y􀁒􀁘 a􀁕􀁈 􀁌􀁑􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁈􀁇 􀁗􀁒 􀁓a􀁕􀁗􀁌c􀁌􀁓a􀁗􀁈 􀁌􀁑 a 􀁕􀁈􀁖􀁈a􀁕c􀁋 􀁖􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁜 􀁒􀁉 􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁕a􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁉􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑a􀁏 􀁈􀁇􀁘ca􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑. Y􀁒􀁘 􀁚􀁈􀁕􀁈 􀁖􀁈􀁏􀁈c􀁗􀁈􀁇 a􀁖 a 􀁓􀁒􀁖􀁖􀁌b􀁏􀁈 􀁖􀁘b􀁍􀁈c􀁗 b􀁈ca􀁘􀁖􀁈 􀁜􀁒􀁘 a􀁕􀁈 a 􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗a􀁏 􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗a􀁏 􀁋􀁜􀁊􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁈 􀁖􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗 􀁌􀁑 U􀁗a􀁋 􀁊􀁕a􀁇􀁘a􀁗􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁌􀁑 2022. W􀁈 a􀁖􀁎 􀁗􀁋a􀁗 􀁜􀁒􀁘 􀁕􀁈a􀁇 􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖 􀁉􀁒􀁕􀁐 a􀁑􀁇 a􀁖􀁎 a􀁑􀁜 􀁔􀁘􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖 􀁜􀁒􀁘 􀁐a􀁜 􀁋a􀁙􀁈 b􀁈􀁉􀁒􀁕􀁈 a􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁗􀁒 b􀁈 􀁌􀁑 􀁗􀁋􀁈 􀁖􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁜. T􀁋􀁈 􀁖􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁜 􀁌􀁖 b􀁈􀁌􀁑􀁊 c􀁒􀁑􀁇􀁘c􀁗􀁈􀁇 b􀁜 Pa􀁌􀁊􀁈 Va􀁑 M􀁈􀁈􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁈􀁑 a􀁑􀁇 L􀁒􀁘􀁌􀁖􀁈 M􀁒􀁘􀁏􀁇􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁗􀁋􀁕􀁒􀁘􀁊􀁋 W􀁈b􀁈􀁕 S􀁗a􀁗􀁈 U􀁑􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁜 . 􀀶􀀷􀀸D􀀼 􀀳􀀸􀀵􀀳O􀀶E T􀁋􀁈 􀁓􀁘􀁕􀁓􀁒􀁖􀁈 􀁒􀁉 􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖 􀁖􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁜 􀁌􀁖 􀁗􀁒 􀁈􀁛􀁓􀁏􀁒􀁕􀁈 􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁕a􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁉􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑a􀁏 􀁈􀁇􀁘ca􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 (􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁕aPE) 􀁌􀁑 􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗a􀁏 􀁈􀁇􀁘ca􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 􀁌􀁑 U􀁗a􀁋 a􀁑􀁇 􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁕a􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁉􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑a􀁏 ac􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖 c􀁋a􀁑􀁊􀁈 􀁗􀁋􀁈 a􀁗􀁗􀁌􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁈􀁖 􀁒􀁉 􀁘􀁓c􀁒􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗a􀁏 􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁉􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑a􀁏􀁖 􀁒􀁑 􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁕a􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁉􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑a􀁏 c􀁒􀁏􀁏ab􀁒􀁕a􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑. Ob􀁍􀁈c􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁖 􀁉􀁒􀁕 􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖 􀁖􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁜 a􀁕􀁈 􀁗􀁒 􀁇􀁈􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁈: W􀁋a􀁗 􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁕aPE ac􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖 a􀁕􀁈 c􀁘􀁕􀁕􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁏􀁜 􀁗a􀁎􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁓􀁏ac􀁈 a􀁗 􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗a􀁏 a􀁑􀁇 􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗a􀁏 􀁋􀁜􀁊􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁈 􀁏􀁈a􀁕􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁌􀁑􀁖􀁗􀁌􀁗􀁘􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖 􀁌􀁑 U􀁗a􀁋? W􀁋a􀁗 􀁇􀁒 􀁘􀁓c􀁒􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗a􀁏 a􀁑􀁇 􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗a􀁏 􀁋􀁜􀁊􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁈 􀁊􀁕a􀁇􀁘a􀁗􀁈􀁖 􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐 􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈 􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁊􀁕a􀁐􀁖 􀁘􀁑􀁇􀁈􀁕􀁖􀁗a􀁑􀁇 ab􀁒􀁘􀁗 􀁗􀁋􀁈 􀁖c􀁒􀁓􀁈 􀁒􀁉 􀁓􀁕ac􀁗􀁌c􀁈 a􀁑􀁇 􀁕􀁒􀁏􀁈 􀁒􀁉 􀁈ac􀁋 􀁒􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁌􀁑 􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁌􀁕 􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁉􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑? W􀁋a􀁗 a􀁕􀁈 􀁗􀁋􀁈 a􀁗􀁗􀁌􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁈􀁖 􀁒􀁉 􀁘􀁓c􀁒􀁐􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗a􀁏 a􀁑􀁇 􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗a􀁏 􀁋􀁜􀁊􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁈 􀁊􀁕a􀁇􀁘a􀁗􀁈􀁖 􀁉􀁕􀁒􀁐 􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁈 􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁊􀁕a􀁐􀁖 􀁗􀁒􀁚a􀁕􀁇􀁖 􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁕a􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁉􀁈􀁖􀁖􀁌􀁒􀁑a􀁏 c􀁒􀁏􀁏ab􀁒􀁕a􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 􀁘􀁓􀁒􀁑 􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁗􀁋􀁈 􀁚􀁒􀁕􀁎􀁉􀁒􀁕c􀁈? N􀀸MBE􀀵 OF 􀀳EO􀀳LE 􀀷AKING 􀀳A􀀵􀀷 IN 􀀷HE 􀀶􀀷􀀸D􀀼 Appendix B INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 34 If 􀁜o􀁘 ag􀁕ee 􀁗o pa􀁕􀁗icipa􀁗e, 􀁜o􀁘 􀁚ill be one of app􀁕o􀁛ima􀁗el􀁜 200 􀁖􀁘bjec􀁗􀁖 􀁚ho 􀁚ill be pa􀁕􀁗icipa􀁗ing in 􀁗hi􀁖 􀁕e􀁖ea􀁕ch. 􀀳􀀵􀀲CED􀀸􀀵E􀀶 F􀀲􀀵 􀀷HE 􀀶􀀷􀀸D􀀼 If 􀁜o􀁘 ag􀁕ee 􀁗o be in 􀁗he 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜, 􀁜o􀁘 􀁚ill an􀁖􀁚e􀁕 q􀁘e􀁖􀁗ion􀁖 in 􀁗hi􀁖 one-􀁗ime 􀁖􀁘􀁕􀁙e􀁜. 􀀵I􀀶K􀀶 􀀲F 􀀷AKING 􀀳A􀀵􀀷 IN 􀀷HE 􀀶􀀷􀀸D􀀼 The􀁕e i􀁖 li􀁗􀁗le 􀁗o no 􀁕i􀁖k in pa􀁕􀁗icipa􀁗ing in 􀁗hi􀁖 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜. If 􀁜o􀁘 feel an􀁜 di􀁖comfo􀁕􀁗 o􀁕 do no􀁗 􀁚an􀁗 􀁗o con􀁗in􀁘e 􀁚i􀁗h 􀁜o􀁘􀁕 pa􀁕􀁗icipa􀁗ion, 􀁜o􀁘 a􀁕e f􀁕ee 􀁗o e􀁛i􀁗 o􀁘􀁗 of 􀁗he 􀁖􀁘􀁕􀁙e􀁜 a􀁗 an􀁜 􀁗ime. The􀁕e ma􀁜 be 􀁕i􀁖k 􀁗ha􀁗 i􀁖 c􀁘􀁕􀁕en􀁗l􀁜 􀁘nfo􀁕e􀁖eeable. BENEFI􀀷􀀶 􀀲F 􀀷AKING 􀀳A􀀵􀀷 IN 􀀷HE 􀀶􀀷􀀸D􀀼 Yo􀁘 􀁚ill no􀁗 􀁕ecei􀁙e pa􀁜men􀁗 fo􀁕 􀁗aking pa􀁕􀁗 in 􀁗hi􀁖 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜. Benefi􀁗􀁖 ma􀁜 incl􀁘de deepe􀁕 con􀁖ide􀁕a􀁗ion abo􀁘􀁗 􀁜o􀁘􀁕 􀁕ole and p􀁕epa􀁕a􀁗ion 􀁗o collabo􀁕a􀁗e 􀁚i􀁗h o􀁗he􀁕􀁖 in 􀁗he den􀁗al field. AL􀀷E􀀵NA􀀷I􀀹E􀀶 􀀷􀀲 􀀷AKING 􀀳A􀀵􀀷 IN 􀀷HE 􀀶􀀷􀀸D􀀼 The􀁕e a􀁕e c􀁘􀁕􀁕en􀁗l􀁜 no al􀁗e􀁕na􀁗i􀁙e􀁖 􀁗o 􀁗aking pa􀁕􀁗 in 􀁗he 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜. C􀀲􀀶􀀷􀀶/ C􀀲M􀀳EN􀀶A􀀷I􀀲N F􀀲􀀵 INJ􀀸􀀵􀀼 In 􀁗he e􀁙en􀁗 of ph􀁜􀁖ical inj􀁘􀁕􀁜 􀁕e􀁖􀁘l􀁗ing f􀁕om 􀁜o􀁘􀁕 pa􀁕􀁗icipa􀁗ion in 􀁗hi􀁖 􀁕e􀁖ea􀁕ch, nece􀁖􀁖a􀁕􀁜 medical 􀁗􀁕ea􀁗men􀁗 􀁚ill be p􀁕o􀁙ided 􀁗o 􀁜o􀁘 and billed a􀁖 pa􀁕􀁗 of 􀁜o􀁘􀁕 medical e􀁛pen􀁖e􀁖. Co􀁖􀁗􀁖 no􀁗 co􀁙e􀁕ed b􀁜 􀁜o􀁘􀁕 heal􀁗h ca􀁕e in􀁖􀁘􀁕e􀁕 􀁚ill be 􀁜o􀁘􀁕 􀁕e􀁖pon􀁖ibili􀁗􀁜. Al􀁖o, i􀁗 i􀁖 􀁜o􀁘􀁕 􀁕e􀁖pon􀁖ibili􀁗􀁜 􀁗o de􀁗e􀁕mine 􀁗he e􀁛􀁗en􀁗 of 􀁜o􀁘􀁕 heal􀁗h ca􀁕e co􀁙e􀁕age. The􀁕e i􀁖 no p􀁕og􀁕am in place fo􀁕 o􀁗he􀁕 mone􀁗a􀁕􀁜 compen􀁖a􀁗ion fo􀁕 􀁖􀁘ch inj􀁘􀁕ie􀁖. Ho􀁚e􀁙e􀁕, 􀁜o􀁘 a􀁕e no􀁗 gi􀁙ing 􀁘p an􀁜 legal 􀁕igh􀁗􀁖 o􀁕 benefi􀁗􀁖 􀁗o 􀁚hich 􀁜o􀁘 a􀁕e o􀁗he􀁕􀁚i􀁖e en􀁗i􀁗led. If 􀁜o􀁘 a􀁕e pa􀁕􀁗icipa􀁗ing in 􀁕e􀁖ea􀁕ch 􀁚hich i􀁖 no􀁗 cond􀁘c􀁗ed a􀁗 a medical facili􀁗􀁜, 􀁜o􀁘 􀁚ill be 􀁕e􀁖pon􀁖ible fo􀁕 􀁖eeking medical ca􀁕e and fo􀁕 􀁗he e􀁛pen􀁖e􀁖 a􀁖􀁖ocia􀁗ed 􀁚i􀁗h an􀁜 ca􀁕e 􀁕ecei􀁙ed. C􀀲NFIDEN􀀷IALI􀀷􀀼 Effo􀁕􀁗􀁖 􀁚ill be made 􀁗o keep 􀁜o􀁘􀁕 pe􀁕􀁖onal info􀁕ma􀁗ion confiden􀁗ial. We canno􀁗 INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 35 g􀁘a􀁕a􀁑􀁗ee ab􀁖􀁒􀁏􀁘􀁗e c􀁒􀁑f􀁌de􀁑􀁗􀁌a􀁏􀁌􀁗􀁜. Y􀁒􀁘􀁕 􀁓e􀁕􀁖􀁒􀁑a􀁏 􀁌􀁑f􀁒􀁕􀁐a􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 􀁐a􀁜 be d􀁌􀁖c􀁏􀁒􀁖ed 􀁌f 􀁕e􀁔􀁘􀁌􀁕ed b􀁜 􀁏a􀁚. Y􀁒􀁘􀁕 􀁌de􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁗􀁜 􀁚􀁌􀁏􀁏 be 􀁋e􀁏d 􀁌􀁑 c􀁒􀁑f􀁌de􀁑ce 􀁌􀁑 􀁕e􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗􀁖 􀁌􀁑 􀁚􀁋􀁌c􀁋 􀁗􀁋e 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜 􀁐a􀁜 be 􀁓􀁘b􀁏􀁌􀁖􀁋ed a􀁑d da􀁗aba􀁖e􀁖 􀁌􀁑 􀁚􀁋􀁌c􀁋 􀁕e􀁖􀁘􀁏􀁗􀁖 􀁐a􀁜 be 􀁖􀁗􀁒􀁕ed. O􀁕ga􀁑􀁌􀁝a􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖 􀁗􀁋a􀁗 􀁐a􀁜 􀁌􀁑􀁖􀁓ec􀁗 a􀁑d/􀁒􀁕 c􀁒􀁓􀁜 􀁜􀁒􀁘􀁕 􀁕e􀁖ea􀁕c􀁋 􀁕ec􀁒􀁕d􀁖 f􀁒􀁕 􀁔􀁘a􀁏􀁌􀁗􀁜 a􀁖􀁖􀁘􀁕a􀁑ce a􀁑d da􀁗a a􀁑a􀁏􀁜􀁖􀁌􀁖 􀁌􀁑c􀁏􀁘de g􀁕􀁒􀁘􀁓􀁖 􀁖􀁘c􀁋 a􀁖 􀁗􀁋e 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜 􀁌􀁑􀁙e􀁖􀁗􀁌ga􀁗􀁒􀁕 a􀁑d 􀁋􀁌􀁖/􀁋e􀁕 􀁕e􀁖ea􀁕c􀁋 a􀁖􀁖􀁒c􀁌a􀁗e􀁖, 􀁗􀁋e Webe􀁕 S􀁗a􀁗e U􀁑􀁌􀁙e􀁕􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁜 I􀁑􀁖􀁗􀁌􀁗􀁘􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑a􀁏 Re􀁙􀁌e􀁚 B􀁒a􀁕d 􀁒􀁕 􀁌􀁗􀁖 de􀁖􀁌g􀁑ee􀁖, a􀁑d (a􀁖 a􀁏􀁏􀁒􀁚ed b􀁜 􀁏a􀁚) 􀁖􀁗a􀁗e 􀁒􀁕 fede􀁕a􀁏 age􀁑c􀁌e􀁖, 􀁖􀁓ec􀁌f􀁌ca􀁏􀁏􀁜 􀁗􀁋e Off􀁌ce f􀁒􀁕 H􀁘􀁐a􀁑 Re􀁖ea􀁕c􀁋 P􀁕􀁒􀁗ec􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖 (OHRP). CON􀀷AC􀀷􀀶 FOR Q􀀸E􀀶􀀷ION􀀶 OR PROBLEM􀀶 F􀁒􀁕 􀁔􀁘e􀁖􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖 ab􀁒􀁘􀁗 􀁗􀁋e 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜, c􀁒􀁑􀁗ac􀁗 􀁗􀁋e 􀁕e􀁖ea􀁕c􀁋e􀁕 Pa􀁌ge Va􀁑 Mee􀁗e􀁕e􀁑 a􀁗 􀁓a􀁌ge􀁙a􀁑􀁐ee􀁗e􀁕e􀁑@􀁐a􀁌􀁏.􀁚ebe􀁕.ed􀁘 􀁒􀁕 􀁗􀁋e 􀁕e􀁖ea􀁕c􀁋e􀁕􀂶􀁖 􀁐e􀁑􀁗􀁒􀁕 L􀁒􀁘􀁌􀁖e M􀁒􀁘􀁏d􀁌􀁑g a􀁗 􀁏􀁐􀁒􀁘􀁏d􀁌􀁑g@􀁚ebe􀁕.ed􀁘. F􀁒􀁕 􀁔􀁘e􀁖􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖 ab􀁒􀁘􀁗 􀁜􀁒􀁘􀁕 􀁕􀁌g􀁋􀁗􀁖 a􀁖 a 􀁕e􀁖ea􀁕c􀁋 􀁓a􀁕􀁗􀁌c􀁌􀁓a􀁑􀁗 􀁒􀁕 􀁗􀁒 d􀁌􀁖c􀁘􀁖􀁖 􀁓􀁕􀁒b􀁏e􀁐􀁖, c􀁒􀁐􀁓􀁏a􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁖 􀁒􀁕 c􀁒􀁑ce􀁕􀁑􀁖 ab􀁒􀁘􀁗 a 􀁕e􀁖ea􀁕c􀁋 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜, 􀁒􀁕 􀁗􀁒 􀁒b􀁗a􀁌􀁑 􀁌􀁑f􀁒􀁕􀁐a􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑, 􀁒􀁕 􀁒ffe􀁕 􀁌􀁑􀁓􀁘􀁗, c􀁒􀁑􀁗ac􀁗 􀁗􀁋e C􀁋a􀁌􀁕 􀁒f 􀁗􀁋e IRB C􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁌􀁗􀁗ee IRB@􀁚ebe􀁕.ed􀁘. 􀀹OL􀀸N􀀷AR􀀼 NA􀀷􀀸RE OF 􀀶􀀷􀀸D􀀼 Ta􀁎􀁌􀁑g 􀁓a􀁕􀁗 􀁌􀁑 􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜 􀁌􀁖 􀁙􀁒􀁏􀁘􀁑􀁗a􀁕􀁜. Y􀁒􀁘 􀁐a􀁜 c􀁋􀁒􀁒􀁖e 􀁑􀁒􀁗 􀁗􀁒 􀁗a􀁎e 􀁓a􀁕􀁗 􀁒􀁕 􀁐a􀁜 􀁏ea􀁙e 􀁗􀁋e 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜 a􀁗 a􀁑􀁜 􀁗􀁌􀁐e. Lea􀁙􀁌􀁑g 􀁗􀁋e 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜 􀁚􀁌􀁏􀁏 􀁑􀁒􀁗 􀁕e􀁖􀁘􀁏􀁗 􀁌􀁑 a􀁑􀁜 􀁓e􀁑a􀁏􀁗􀁜 􀁒􀁕 􀁏􀁒􀁖􀁖 􀁒f be􀁑ef􀁌􀁗􀁖 􀁗􀁒 􀁚􀁋􀁌c􀁋 􀁜􀁒􀁘 a􀁕e e􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁗􀁏ed. 􀀶􀀸BJEC􀀷􀂶􀀶 CON􀀶EN􀀷 I􀁑 c􀁒􀁑􀁖􀁌de􀁕a􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 􀁒f a􀁏􀁏 􀁒f 􀁗􀁋e ab􀁒􀁙e, I g􀁌􀁙e 􀁐􀁜 c􀁒􀁑􀁖e􀁑􀁗 􀁗􀁒 􀁓a􀁕􀁗􀁌c􀁌􀁓a􀁗e 􀁌􀁑 􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁖 􀁕e􀁖ea􀁕c􀁋 􀁖􀁗􀁘d􀁜. I a􀁏􀁖􀁒 ac􀁎􀁑􀁒􀁚􀁏edge 􀁗􀁋a􀁗 I a􀁐 a de􀁑􀁗a􀁏 􀁒􀁕 de􀁑􀁗a􀁏 􀁋􀁜g􀁌e􀁑e 􀁖􀁗􀁘de􀁑􀁗 􀁌􀁑 U􀁗a􀁋 a􀁑d 􀁚􀁌􀁏􀁏 be g􀁕ad􀁘a􀁗􀁌􀁑g 􀁌􀁑 2022. D􀁈􀁐􀁒􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁓􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁖 􀀼􀁈􀁖, I 􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁖􀁈􀁑􀁗. 􀀱􀁒, I 􀁇􀁒 􀁑􀁒􀁗 􀁆􀁒􀁑􀁖􀁈􀁑􀁗.INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 36 Se􀁏ec􀁗 􀁚h􀁌ch 􀁒f 􀁗he f􀁒􀁏􀁏􀁒􀁚􀁌􀁑g be􀁖􀁗 de􀁖c􀁕􀁌be􀁖 􀁜􀁒􀁘. Wh􀁌ch 􀁓􀁕􀁒g􀁕a􀁐 a􀁕e 􀁜􀁒􀁘 a􀁗􀁗e􀁑d􀁌􀁑g? Wh􀁌ch 􀁓􀁕􀁒g􀁕a􀁐 a􀁕e 􀁜􀁒􀁘 a􀁗􀁗e􀁑d􀁌􀁑g? I􀁑 􀁗he f􀁒􀁏􀁏􀁒􀁚􀁌􀁑g 􀁔􀁘e􀁖􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖, 􀁗he 􀁗e􀁕􀁐 "de􀁑􀁗a􀁏 􀁖􀁗􀁘de􀁑􀁗" 􀁌􀁖 􀁘􀁖ed 􀁗􀁒 de􀁖c􀁕􀁌be 􀁖􀁗􀁘de􀁑􀁗􀁖 a􀁗􀁗e􀁑d􀁌􀁑g a􀁑 ed􀁘ca􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑a􀁏 􀁓􀁕􀁒g􀁕a􀁐 􀁗􀁒 bec􀁒􀁐e de􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁖􀁗􀁖. I􀁑􀁗􀁕aPE Ac􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌e􀁖 Se􀁏ec􀁗 a􀁏􀁏 􀁗ha􀁗 a􀁓􀁓􀁏􀁜. Wha􀁗 􀁍􀁒􀁌􀁑􀁗 ac􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌e􀁖 ha􀁙e 􀁜􀁒􀁘 had 􀁚􀁌􀁗h de􀁑􀁗a􀁏 h􀁜g􀁌e􀁑e 􀁖􀁗􀁘de􀁑􀁗􀁖 􀁚h􀁌􀁏e 􀁌􀁑 􀁜􀁒􀁘􀁕 c􀁘􀁕􀁕e􀁑􀁗 􀁓􀁕􀁒g􀁕a􀁐? D􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁄􀁏 H􀁜􀁊􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁈 􀀶􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗 D􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁄􀁏 􀀶􀁗􀁘􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁗 􀀺􀁈􀁅􀁈􀁕 􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈 􀀸􀁑􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁜 􀀸􀁗􀁄􀁋 􀀹􀁄􀁏􀁏􀁈􀁜 􀀸􀁑􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁜 􀀶􀁄􀁏􀁗 L􀁄􀁎􀁈 C􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁘􀁑􀁌􀁗􀁜 C􀁒􀁏􀁏􀁈􀁊􀁈 D􀁌􀁛􀁌􀁈 􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁈 􀀸􀁑􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁖􀁌􀁗􀁜 F􀁒􀁕􀁗􀁌􀁖 C􀁒􀁏􀁏􀁈􀁊􀁈 􀀲􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀀸􀁗􀁄􀁋 􀀶􀁆􀁋􀁒􀁒􀁏 􀁒􀁉 D􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁌􀁖􀁗􀁕􀁜 􀀲􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀀶􀁈􀁕􀁙􀁌􀁆􀁈-􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁍􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁖 E􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁖 􀁆􀁏􀁄􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁖INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 37 Wha􀁗 􀁒􀁗he􀁕 j􀁒i􀁑􀁗 ac􀁗i􀁙i􀁗ie􀁖 ha􀁙e 􀁜􀁒􀁘 had 􀁚i􀁗h de􀁑􀁗al h􀁜gie􀁑e 􀁖􀁗􀁘de􀁑􀁗􀁖 􀁚hile i􀁑 􀁜􀁒􀁘􀁕 c􀁘􀁕􀁕e􀁑􀁗 􀁓􀁕􀁒g􀁕am be􀁖ide􀁖 􀁗he ac􀁗i􀁙i􀁗ie􀁖 􀁓􀁕e􀁙i􀁒􀁘􀁖l􀁜 me􀁑􀁗i􀁒􀁑ed? Selec􀁗 all 􀁗ha􀁗 a􀁓􀁓l􀁜. Wha􀁗 j􀁒i􀁑􀁗 ac􀁗i􀁙i􀁗ie􀁖 ha􀁙e 􀁜􀁒􀁘 had 􀁚i􀁗h de􀁑􀁗al 􀁖􀁗􀁘de􀁑􀁗􀁖 􀁚hile i􀁑 􀁜􀁒􀁘􀁕 c􀁘􀁕􀁕e􀁑􀁗 􀁓􀁕􀁒g􀁕am? 􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁑􀁇􀁄􀁕􀁇􀁌􀁝􀁈􀁇 􀁓􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁗 􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁐􀁖 B􀁄􀁖􀁌􀁆 􀁖􀁆􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈 􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁕􀁖􀁈􀁖 C􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁘􀁑􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀀵􀁈􀁙􀁌􀁈􀁚 􀁒􀁉 􀁈􀁙􀁌􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈-􀁅􀁄􀁖􀁈􀁇 􀁓􀁕􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁈 􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖 C􀁏􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏 􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖 E􀁙􀁄􀁏􀁘􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 􀁒􀁉 􀁋􀁈􀁄􀁏􀁗􀁋 􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁗􀁈􀁐􀁖 􀁄􀁆􀁕􀁒􀁖􀁖 􀁄􀁑􀁇 􀁇􀁈􀁏􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁜 􀁒􀁉 􀁆􀁄􀁕􀁈 J􀁒􀁌􀁑􀁗 􀁙􀁒􀁏􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖 M􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏 􀁈􀁐􀁈􀁕􀁊􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁜 􀁒􀁕 􀁓􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁗 􀁖􀁄􀁉􀁈􀁗􀁜 􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖 N􀁒􀁑􀁈 􀁒􀁉 􀁗􀁋􀁈 􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖 􀁏􀁌􀁖􀁗􀁈􀁇 􀁄􀁅􀁒􀁙􀁈 􀀵􀁈􀁙􀁌􀁈􀁚 􀁒􀁉 􀁈􀁙􀁌􀁇􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈-􀁅􀁄􀁖􀁈􀁇 􀁓􀁕􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁆􀁈 􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖 N􀁒􀁑􀁈 􀁒􀁉 􀁗􀁋􀁈 􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖 􀁏􀁌􀁖􀁗􀁈􀁇 􀁄􀁅􀁒􀁙􀁈 B􀁄􀁖􀁌􀁆 􀁖􀁆􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁈 􀁆􀁒􀁘􀁕􀁖􀁈􀁖 C􀁒􀁐􀁐􀁘􀁑􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 􀁗􀁕􀁄􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊 C􀁏􀁌􀁑􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏 􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖 􀀶􀁈􀁕􀁙􀁌􀁆􀁈-􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁍􀁈􀁆􀁗􀁖 E􀁙􀁄􀁏􀁘􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 􀁒􀁉 􀁋􀁈􀁄􀁏􀁗􀁋 􀁖􀁜􀁖􀁗􀁈􀁐􀁖 􀁄􀁆􀁕􀁒􀁖􀁖 􀁄􀁑􀁇 􀁇􀁈􀁏􀁌􀁙􀁈􀁕􀁜 􀁒􀁉 􀁆􀁄􀁕􀁈 M􀁈􀁇􀁌􀁆􀁄􀁏 􀁈􀁐􀁈􀁕􀁊􀁈􀁑􀁆􀁜 􀁒􀁕 􀁓􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁗 􀁖􀁄􀁉􀁈􀁗􀁜 􀁌􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁕􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑􀁖 J􀁒􀁌􀁑􀁗 􀁙􀁒􀁏􀁘􀁑􀁗􀁈􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁆􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁌􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁖 E􀁗􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁖 􀁆􀁏􀁄􀁖􀁖􀁈􀁖 􀀶􀁗􀁄􀁑􀁇􀁄􀁕􀁇􀁌􀁝􀁈􀁇 􀁓􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁈􀁑􀁗 􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁐􀁖INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 38 What other joint activities have 􀁜ou had 􀁚ith dental students 􀁚hile in 􀁜our current program besides the activities previousl􀁜 mentioned? Sc􀁒􀁓e 􀁒􀁉 P􀁕ac􀁗􀁌ce a􀁑d R􀁒􀁏e􀁖 Please use the sliders to rank the follo􀁚ing tasks as dentist-centered or dental h􀁜gienist-centered. 1= belongs onl􀁜 to the dental h􀁜gienist, 5= just as much a task of dentists as dental h􀁜gienists, 9 = belongs onl􀁜 to the dentist. Please use the sliders to rank the follo􀁚ing tasks as dentist-centered or dental h􀁜gienist-centered. 1= belongs onl􀁜 to the dental h􀁜gienist, 5= just as much a task of dentists as dental h􀁜gienists, 9 = belongs onl􀁜 to the dentist. 􀀳􀁕􀁈􀁙􀁈􀁑􀁗􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁙􀁈 􀀷􀁄􀁖􀁎􀁖 􀀷􀁈􀁈􀁗􀁋 􀁆􀁏􀁈􀁄􀁑􀁌􀁑􀁊 􀀳􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁒􀁇􀁌􀁆 􀀲􀁕􀁄􀁏 􀀨􀁙􀁄􀁏􀁘􀁄􀁗􀁌􀁒􀁑 􀀦􀁄􀁕􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁒􀁊􀁌􀁆 􀁕􀁄􀁇􀁌􀁒􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁓􀁋 􀀳􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁒􀁇􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁄􀁏 􀁕􀁄􀁇􀁌􀁒􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁓􀁋 􀀦􀁄􀁕􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁒􀁊􀁌􀁆 􀁇􀁌􀁄􀁊􀁑􀁒􀁖􀁌􀁖 􀀳􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁒􀁇􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁄􀁏 􀁇􀁌􀁄􀁊􀁑􀁒􀁖􀁌􀁖 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 􀀛 􀀜 INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 39 A􀁗􀁗􀁌􀁗􀁘d􀁈􀁖 T􀁒􀁚a􀁕d􀁖 I􀁑􀁗􀁕aPC Pa􀁗ie􀁑􀁗􀁖 be􀁑efi􀁗 􀁚he􀁑 de􀁑􀁗i􀁖􀁗􀁖 a􀁑d de􀁑􀁗al h􀁜gie􀁑i􀁖􀁗􀁖 􀁚􀁒􀁕k 􀁗􀁒ge􀁗he􀁕 􀁗􀁒 􀁖􀁒l􀁙e 􀁓􀁕􀁒blem􀁖. I feel c􀁒􀁑fide􀁑􀁗 i􀁑 m􀁜 abili􀁗􀁜 􀁗􀁒 􀁚􀁒􀁕k 􀁚i􀁗h de􀁑􀁗i􀁖􀁗􀁖 􀁗􀁒 􀁖􀁒l􀁙e 􀁓􀁕􀁒blem􀁖. I feel c􀁒􀁑fide􀁑􀁗 i􀁑 m􀁜 abili􀁗􀁜 􀁗􀁒 􀁚􀁒􀁕k 􀁚i􀁗h de􀁑􀁗al h􀁜gie􀁑i􀁖􀁗􀁖 􀁗􀁒 􀁖􀁒l􀁙e 􀁓􀁕􀁒blem􀁖. C􀁄􀁕􀁌􀁒􀁏􀁒􀁊􀁌􀁆 􀁗􀁕􀁈􀁄􀁗􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗 P􀁈􀁕􀁌􀁒􀁇􀁒􀁑􀁗􀁄􀁏 􀁗􀁕􀁈􀁄􀁗􀁐􀁈􀁑􀁗 L􀁒􀁆􀁄􀁏 􀁄􀁑􀁈􀁖􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁖􀁌􀁄 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 N􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 N􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 40 De􀁑􀁗i􀁖􀁗􀁖 a􀁑d de􀁑􀁗al h􀁜gie􀁑i􀁖􀁗􀁖 􀁖h􀁒􀁘ld lea􀁕􀁑 􀁗ea􀁐-􀁚􀁒􀁕ki􀁑g 􀁖kill􀁖. I feel c􀁒􀁑fide􀁑􀁗 i􀁑 􀁐􀁜 abili􀁗􀁜 􀁗􀁒 􀁚􀁒􀁕k a􀁖 a 􀁗ea􀁐 􀁚i􀁗h de􀁑􀁗i􀁖􀁗􀁖. I feel c􀁒􀁑fide􀁑􀁗 i􀁑 􀁐􀁜 abili􀁗􀁜 􀁗􀁒 􀁚􀁒􀁕k a􀁖 a 􀁗ea􀁐 􀁚i􀁗h de􀁑􀁗al h􀁜gie􀁑i􀁖􀁗􀁖. De􀁑􀁗i􀁖􀁗􀁖 a􀁑d de􀁑􀁗al h􀁜gie􀁑i􀁖􀁗􀁖 􀁑eed 􀁗􀁒 􀁗􀁕􀁘􀁖􀁗 a􀁑d 􀁕e􀁖􀁓ec􀁗 each 􀁒􀁗he􀁕. N􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 N􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 N􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 N􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 41 I ca􀁑 􀁙􀁒ice m􀁜 i􀁑􀁖igh􀁗􀁖 􀁗􀁒 􀁗he de􀁑􀁗i􀁖􀁗 􀁗􀁒 􀁖􀁒l􀁙e cli􀁑ical 􀁓􀁕􀁒blem􀁖. I li􀁖􀁗e􀁑 􀁗􀁒 􀁗he i􀁑􀁖igh􀁗􀁖 f􀁕􀁒m de􀁑􀁗al h􀁜gie􀁑i􀁖􀁗􀁖 􀁗􀁒 􀁖􀁒l􀁙e cli􀁑ical 􀁓􀁕􀁒blem􀁖. De􀁑􀁗i􀁖􀁗􀁖 ha􀁙e m􀁒􀁕e k􀁑􀁒􀁚ledge a􀁑d 􀁖kill􀁖 􀁗ha􀁑 de􀁑􀁗al h􀁜gie􀁑i􀁖􀁗􀁖. S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 N􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 N􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 N􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 N􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 S􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈INTRAPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN DENTAL EDUCATION 42 The 􀁓􀁕i􀁐a􀁕􀁜 f􀁘􀁑c􀁗i􀁒􀁑 􀁒f a de􀁑􀁗a􀁏 h􀁜gie􀁑i􀁖􀁗 i􀁖 􀁗􀁒 􀁓􀁕􀁒􀁙ide 􀁖􀁘􀁓􀁓􀁒􀁕􀁗 a􀁑d a􀁖􀁖i􀁖􀁗a􀁑ce 􀁗􀁒 􀁗he de􀁑􀁗i􀁖􀁗. I ack􀁑􀁒􀁚􀁏edge 􀁐􀁜 􀁒􀁚􀁑 c􀁏i􀁑ica􀁏 􀁏i􀁐i􀁗a􀁗i􀁒􀁑􀁖. D􀁈􀁐􀁒􀁊􀁕􀁄􀁓􀁋􀁌􀁆􀁖 C􀁒􀁑􀁗. P􀁕i􀁒􀁕 􀁗􀁒 􀁜􀁒􀁘􀁕 c􀁘􀁕􀁕e􀁑􀁗 􀁓􀁕􀁒g􀁕a􀁐 ed􀁘ca􀁗i􀁒􀁑 a􀁑d 􀁗􀁕ai􀁑i􀁑g, h􀁒􀁚 􀁐a􀁑􀁜 􀁜ea􀁕􀁖 􀁒f e􀁛􀁓e􀁕ie􀁑ce􀁖 did 􀁜􀁒􀁘 ha􀁙e i􀁑 􀁗he de􀁑􀁗a􀁏 fie􀁏d? 􀀶􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀀶􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀀱􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀀶􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀀶􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀀶􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 A􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀀶􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀀱􀁈􀁌􀁗􀁋􀁈􀁕 􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀁑􀁒􀁕 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀀶􀁒􀁐􀁈􀁚􀁋􀁄􀁗 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀀶􀁗􀁕􀁒􀁑􀁊􀁏􀁜 􀁇􀁌􀁖􀁄􀁊􀁕􀁈􀁈 􀀯􀁈􀁖􀁖 􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁑 1 􀁜􀁈􀁄􀁕 1-3 􀁜􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁖 3-5 􀁜􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁖 5-7 􀁜􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁖 7-10 􀁜􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁖 􀀰􀁒􀁕􀁈 􀁗􀁋􀁄􀁑 10 􀁜􀁈􀁄􀁕􀁖