Maxillary Premolar with 4 Separate Canals

Introduction

Recognition of anatomic variations is a challenge for clinicians regardless of which tooth is treated. Maxillary premolars usually have 2 root canals, but the presence of 3 distinct root canals has been reported in 1%–6% of cases.

Methods and Results

This report describes the case of a maxillary right second premolar with 4 separate canals: 1 mesial, 1 palatal, and 2 distal canals. This was confirmed by using cone-beam computed tomography and was successfully treated with rotary files and obturated by using a warm vertical compaction technique.

Conclusions

The clinical significance of the present case is that this is the first report of 3 roots and 4 separate canals in a maxillary premolar. Precise knowledge of root canal morphology and its variation is also underlined. Cone-beam computed tomography examination and the operating microscope are excellent tools for identifying and managing these complex root canal systems.     

Is it possible to make an accurate diagnosis based only on a medical history? A pilot study on women's knee joints

The purpose of this pilot study was to determine if an accurate diagnosis could be made concerning the knee joint using only the patients' medical history information. Only women were chosen for this study because of existing unpublished data on a cohort of 100 women with normal knees to act as a control (group I). From the 2,266 knee surgical procedures in the database of one surgeon, two other groups were selected. Group II was those women with only a torn medial meniscus. Group III were those women with only a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). The medical history data of one half of the database were statistically analyzed to determine the questions that were the best predictors of each group. The medical history questions discovered to be best predictors were different from what might be expected from an individual surgeon's experience, expert opinion, or a medical consensus opinion panel, but the predictors did have a foundation in fact and are substantiated by statistical analyses. Using these predictors, a validation was performed on the other half of the database. When the top 142 predicting questions were used, the diagnostic accuracy was 98%; 98 of 100 of the “normal” group, 57 of 59 cases classified as having a torn meniscus, whereas 128 of 129 cases classified as having a torn ACL were correctly identified. When the only the 30 strongest predictors were used, the diagnostic accuracy was 85%: 100 of 100 cases were correctly classified as normal, 45 of 59 cases were correctly classified as having a torn meniscus, and 101 of 129 cases were correctly classified as having a torn ACL. This study demonstrated that statistical methods applied to medical historical data can make a differential clinical diagnosis of an unknown knee joint problem with high degree of accuracy and with statistical significance. In the future, computerized medical diagnostic instruments can be constructed using these statistical methods.     

Comparison of faculty assessment and students’ self-assessment of performance during clinical case discussions in a pharmacotherapy capstone course

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to compare faculty assessment and third year students' self-assessment of performance in clinical case discussions. The secondary objective was to evaluate if student characteristics influence self-assessments.

Methods: This retrospective analysis compared faculty and student self-assessment scores for two clinical case discussions using Spearman’s correlation and Wilcoxon’s signed ranks test. Chi-squared test was used to compare frequency of faculty and student self-assessments indicating the highest possible rating for the pooled score and for each individual component. The pooled score included three individual components: level of engagement, quality of contribution, and professionalism.

Results: Pooled faculty and student self-assessments correlated for both the first (r?=?0.41, p?r?=?0.35; p?p?=?0.25) and second (58.6% vs. 47.4%, p?=?0.05) clinical case discussions. Student characteristics (age, gender, and grade point average at graduation) did not influence self-assessments.

Conclusions: Students’ self-assessment correlated with faculty assessment of performance during clinical case discussions. Increased use of self-assessments for professional development in pharmacy and other healthcare professional curricula should be considered.     

Preparing educators for adaptive education (AE) programs

Abstract

Context: There has long been awareness that educational experiences should be individualized. In the health professions, this tenet remains inconsistently implemented. Adapting to the widely diverse characteristics of different learners requires educators who are prepared for planning and implementing adaptive education (AE).

Rationale: Learning experiences, for both educators and health professions students, can be substantially enhanced by mirroring clinical care, where we respect the uniqueness of each person and increasingly approach care as a collaboration. We are continuously “diagnostic,” striving to understand our patients’ clinical and life circumstances, adjusting to new findings. Learners are also unique in multiple, relevant ways. They deserve educators who work with them collaboratively and “diagnostically,” adapting to changing information.

Implementation: Until recently, having educational programs that adapt to learner uniqueness was logistically and economically unrealistic. Now, thanks to deeper understandings of the learning process and new technologies, individualization is feasible. Here, we focus on the foundation step of preparing educators.

Educator development: Suitably prepared educators are indispensable to success in becoming appropriately adaptive to learners’ needs. For some educators, becoming more adaptive can be contrary to long-held assumptions and habits. We offer recommendations for effective educator development, without which authentic AE is unlikely.     

A call to action: The controversy of and rationale for competency-based medical education

Although medical education has enjoyed many successes over the last century, there is a recognition that health care is too often unsafe and of poor quality. Errors in diagnosis and treatment, communication breakdowns, poor care coordination, inappropriate use of tests and procedures, and dysfunctional collaboration harm patients and families around the world. These issues reflect on our current model of medical education and raise the question: Are physicians being adequately prepared for twenty-first century practice? Multiple reports have concluded the answer is “no.” Concurrent with this concern is an increasing interest in competency-based medical education (CBME) as an approach to help reform medical education. The principles of CBME are grounded in providing better and safer care. As interest in CBME has increased, so have criticisms of the movement. This article summarizes and addresses objections and challenges related to CBME. These can provide valuable feedback to improve CBME implementation and avoid pitfalls. We strongly believe medical education reform should not be reduced to an “either/or” approach, but should blend theories and approaches to suit the needs and resources of the populations served. The incorporation of milestones and entrustable professional activities within existing competency frameworks speaks to the dynamic evolution of CBME, which should not be viewed as a fixed doctrine, but rather as a set of evolving concepts, principles, tools, and approaches that can enable important reforms in medical education that, in turn, enable the best outcomes for patients.     

Toward a research agenda for competency-based medical education

Competency-based medical education (CBME) is both an educational philosophy and an approach to educational design. CBME has already had a broad impact on medical schools, residency programs, and continuing professional development in health professions around the world. As the CBME movement evolves and CBME programs are implemented, a wide range of emerging research questions will warrant scholarly examination. In this paper, we describe a proposed CBME research agenda developed by the International CBME Collaborators. The resulting framework includes questions about the meaning of key concepts of CBME and their implications for learners, faculty members, and institutional structures. Other research questions relate to the learning process, the meaning of entrustment decisions, fundamental measurement issues, and the nature and definition of standards. The exploration of these questions will help to solidify the theoretical foundation of CBME, but many issues related to implementation also need to be addressed. These pertain to, among other things, nurturing independent learning, assembling and using assessment results to make decisions about competence, structuring feedback, supporting remediation, and how best to evaluate the longer-term outcomes of CBME. High-quality research on these questions will require rigorous outcome measures with strong validity evidence. The complexity of CBME necessitates theoretical and methodological diversity. It also requires multi-institutional studies that examine effects at multiple levels, from the learner to the team, the institution, and the health care system. Such a framework of research questions can guide and facilitate scholarly discourse on the theoretical and practical body of knowledge related to competency-based health professions education.     

Real‐World Evidence,Public Participation,and the FDA

For observers of pharmaceutical regulation and the Food and Drug Administration, these are uncertain times. Events in late 2016 raised concerns that the FDA's evidentiary standards were being weakened, compromising the agency's ability to adequately perform its regulatory and public health responsibilities. Two developments most directly contributed to these fears—the approval of eteplirsen, a treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, against the recommendations of both FDA staff and an advisory committee and the December 2016 signing of the 21st Century Cures Act, which encouraged greater use by the FDA of “real‐world” evidence not obtained through randomized controlled trials. The arrival of the Trump administration—with its deregulatory, industry‐friendly approach—has only amplified concerns over the future of the FDA. It is too early to know whether the recent developments are truly harbingers of an FDA less likely to prevent unsafe or ineffective products from reaching the market. But elements in the two events—the role of patient narratives in deliberations regarding eteplirsen and the enthusiasm for real‐world evidence in the 21st Century Cures Act—raise critical issues for the future of evidence in the FDA's work. The rigorous, inclusive approach under way to consider issues related to real‐world evidence provides a model for a similarly needed inquiry regarding public participation in FDA decision‐making.     

Moving beyond randomized controlled trials in the evaluation of compulsory community treatment

Compulsory community treatment for people with severe mental illness remains controversial due to conflicting research evidence. Recently, there have been challenges to the conventional view that trial‐based evidence should take precedence. This paper adds to these challenges in three ways. First, it emphasizes the need for critiques of trials to engage with conceptual and not just technical issues. Second, it develops a critique of trials centred on both how we can have knowledge and what it is we can have knowledge of. Third, it uses this critique to develop a research strategy that capitalizes on the information in large‐scale datasets.