PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 9193447

Making science clinically relevant.

Abstract

Clinical practice requires a sound foundation in the basic and clinical sciences. However, the traditional dental curriculum often separates the two in a variety of ways that reduce their integration. The basic sciences are commonly taught in the first two years by a basic science faculty with inconsistent integration with clinical dental practice. The clinical sciences are often taught by faculty who may not be actively involved in research-related activities. The curriculum is dense and is difficult to modify to adapt to evolving scientific discovery and application. The 1995 IOM report focuses much of its attention on these issues. The Harvard School of Dental Medicine has dramatically modified its curriculum twice in the recent past to more closely integrate the basic and clinical sciences and to promote the clinical relevance of the basic sciences. The class entering in 1980 began a five-year D.M.D. program that was designed to decompress the curriculum and increase experiences that enhance scientific and clinical integration. The class entering in 1994 initiated a four-year program that uses a problem-based learning design throughout the entire curriculum. Strategies for integrating the clinical and the basic sciences along with research training and experience were developed and implemented in both programs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R W Valachovic. 1997. Making science clinically relevant.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9193447/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Underperforming doctors: a postal survey of the Northern Deanery.

OBJECTIVES: To discover the perceived size of pool of doctors considered to be underperforming in general practice in the Northern Deanery and to discover whether these perceptions are based on formal assessments. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire. SETTING: Area covered by the Northern Deanery. SUBJECTS: Seven health authority directors of primary care, seven secretaries of local medical committees, and 14 chief officers of community health councils. RESULTS: The response rate was 100% for directors of primary care and secretaries of local medical committees and, after one reminder, 92% for chief officers of community health councils. Numbers of doctors perceived to be underperforming ranged from none to over 15 in different health authority areas. Main areas for concern were communication skills, clinical skills, and management skills. Patients' representatives were concerned about lack of power of patients and health authorities and doctors' lack of accountability. Health authorities were concerned about lack of power, identification of underperforming doctors, and doctors' professional loyalty. Local medical committees were concerned about the problem of identifying underperformance. A number of methods were used for identification, and there was no common method applied. CONCLUSIONS: The number of doctors thought to be underperforming was small. Work still needs to be done on developing tools that can be used in everyday practice to enable doctors to confirm for themselves, their colleagues, and their patients that they are providing an adequate level of care.

Clinical Competence