Restorative Dentistry Student Advising/Patient Treatment
This document is organized under the following headings:
*Description of Advising System and Treatment Planning Process
*Appendix A: Current Faculty Advising Groups
*Appendix B: Guidelines for Oral Conditions Appropriate for Care by Predoctoral Students
*Appendix C: Patient Oral Conditions Requiring Advising System Management
*Appendix D: Treatment Planning Competency Form
*Appendix E: Informed Consent Competency Form
*Appendix F: Student Evaluation Form (by Faculty)
*Appendix G: Faculty Evaluation Form (by Student)
(*Appendix H: Outcomes Assessment Form)-under development
Restorative Dentistry (ResD) maintains a system to assure that students have a resource for
planning and implementing restorative care of patients with more advanced needs. This system
provides the best learning for students, the best treatment for patients, and the lowest risk of
problems for the patient, the student, and the school.
The goals of the advising system are to ensure that:
(1) students learn how to plan, implement, and manage treatment of more complex cases.
(2) patient treatment is planned and sequenced properly, and approached comprehensively
and with continuity.
(3) clinical competency is achieved in the areas of patient treatment planning and informed
consent for treatment.
(4) the student learns to integrate restorative treatment with other dimensions of dentistry
1959 NE Pacific Street, D770 Seattle, Washington 98195
206.543.5948 FAX 206.543.7783 www.dental.washington.edu
Description of Advising System and Treatment Planning Process
Advising Groups: Restorative (ResD) faculty are organized into 5 faculty advising groups with
three or more faculty per group. Faculty advising groups are selected (Appendix A) to provide
sufficient expertise within each group to administer and coordinate comprehensive treatment of
patients seen at the predoctoral level. Each group is responsible for approximately thirteen
(13) D3 (including RIDE students) and eleven (11) D4 students. Students will be assigned to
their faculty advising group by the Advising System Director at the beginning of their 3rd year,
and will retain that group for the duration of their time at the school. Transfers of students
among advising groups will be considered, but discouraged, and administered by the Director
and Chair of ResD as necessary. D4 RIDE students will obtain advising via their mentors in
Treatment in the Predoctoral Restorative Clinic: To be treated at the School of Dentistry by
predoctoral students, a patient’s clinical needs must meet certain global guidelines (see
Appendix B). These guidelines protect both the patient and the student. The student should be
aware that patients who do not meet the guidelines in Appendix B will be rejected by Advising
teams for treatment in the predoctoral program. At the time of the initial restorative
assessment, many patients will have treatment needs that meet predoctoral guidelines, but
require a comprehensive, strategic approach for appropriate management. For these patients,
the student is required to coordinate treatment through their faculty advising group. Examples
of these types of patients are shown in Appendix C, but the faculty member present at the initial
restorative appointment has the discretion to request involvement or oversight of the advising
group for any patient or student. The Director (currently Dr. Verhoef) will have the ultimate
decision about the appropriateness of patients (both comprehensive and limited care) for the
predoctoral program. If the patient’s needs are appropriate for predoctoral care, the student will
proceed with the initial Restorative appointment (next section).
Sequence of Events in the Initial Restorative Comprehensive Care Appointment (Figure next
page): A determination will be made by the student and faculty covering clinic as to the
complexity of the needs of the patient. A periodontal assessment of the patient’s needs will also
be made by the periodontist on the floor to determine if the periodontal needs are routine or
more advanced. If the patient’s needs (perio and restorative) are routine, the student should
propose a treatment list and the faculty will confirm the treatment and approve the plan in
axiUm. Treatment may then proceed to completion (usually beginning with prophylaxis).
Routine restorative cases generally involve direct fillings and no more than a single crown; most
patients will be administered by this route. However, other factors, such as a medical condition,
behavioral needs, rampant disease, or other factors may make use of the advising system
appropriate—at the discretion of the faculty covering the clinic (perio or restorative).
If the patient’s needs are more complex (perio, or restorative as outlined in Appendix C), no
treatment plan will be formulated at the initial appointment. Rather, the goal of the appointment
will be to collect sufficient data for presentation to the student’s Advisor, so that treatment
options can be constructed for the patient. Clinical findings and data collection may include:
alginate impressions, current radiographs, pulp testing, facebow transfer and bite registration
records, periodontal charting, photographs (hard copy, disk, or AxiUm). Special attention
should be paid to assess teeth that have a guarded prognosis (e.g., restorability is borderline).
The perio faculty also may require more advanced charting, tests, or special photographs as
needed for complex perio cases. The faculty members on duty will guide the student as to the
appropriate data collection. The patient will be advised that they may need to return for a
separate treatment planning appointment. In rare cases, a second diagnostic appointment
might be necessary as well. In general referral from Endodontics, Orthodontics, or Oral Surgery
should be deferred until the student has met with the advising team.
Treatment Planning Session with the Advisor: For patients whose treatment requires the
advising system, the student should arrange appointments with whomever in their advising
group is best equipped to answer questions/address issues (determined by faculty in the
advising group). The faculty advising group will consult among themselves as necessary to
assure coordination of treatment and appropriate student advising.
In preparation for the appointment with the advising team, the student will pour and trim alginate
impressions and mount casts, and then depending on the experience of the student, formulate
preliminary treatment options and treatment sequences. It is the student’s professional
responsibility to be fully prepared for the session with the advising team, bringing all records
needed and familiarizing themselves with the patient’s needs and history (for example, being
aware of all medications and what they are for). Students will be evaluated on their preparation
for and performance during these sessions (see section below).
At the advising appointment, the student and Faculty Advisor will formulate treatment options
and potential treatment sequences for the patient. If the periodontal needs also are complex,
the student will meet with the periodontal Advisor (Appendix A) who will be retained for a given
patient throughout treatment). The Restorative Advisor may require input from the Perio
Advisor prior to formulating restorative options. The Restorative Advisor also will help the
student to plan consultations from Endondontics, Oral Surgery, or Orthodontics as needed.
Consultations will be obtained after the treatment plan is finalized.
At this point, the Faculty Advisor will determine how the treatment plan will be presented to the
(i) If the proposed plan can be addressed only as one logical option, the Advisor may
allow the student to schedule the patient into the Restorative clinic and present the
treatment plan without the Faculty Advisor.
(ii) If the proposed plan contains more than one logical option, but each option is straight
forward and should require little discussion, the Advisor my determine that the student
should schedule the patient into the Restorative Clinic when the same faculty (or
another member of the Advisory Team) is present to finalize the approval of the
(iii) If the proposed treatment plan is more complex with several options requiring patient
input and faculty consultation, the Advisor will ask the student to schedule the patient
into the treatment planning chair.
Treatment Planning Chair: The following ideas will guide the administration and use of the
treatment planning chair. Note that treatment of patients will not commence until the advising
faculty approves the final treatment plan and treatment is accepted by the patient.
a. Students are responsible for coordinating a treatment planning session with their patient
and Faculty Advisor. Faculty is responsible for suggesting available times for students to
schedule their patients.
b. Appointments must be made through the clinic coordinator (currently Shirley Sampson) at
least 3 days in advance, and students must confirm the appointment 24 hours in
advance. Most days there will be 3 chairs available for treatment planning. The
appointment need not be at 9:30 or 1:30, but cannot be scheduled after 10:30 or 2:30. If
2 patients are scheduled on the same day, they should be staggered at 9:30 and 10:30,
or 1:30 and 2:30.
c. Treatment planning sessions are independent from regularly blocked sessions. They
may be scheduled during one of their open session, or at the time of a regularly
scheduled blocked session. Students must cancel their regular session in order to
schedule the Treatment Planning Chair.
d. Faculty may facilitate the session by any means at their discretion. They may choose to
be present at all times, or allow the student to present the treatment options, and then be
present to answer questions and to approve the treatment plan.
e. At the end of the appointment, the patient should either: 1) approve the plan; 2) decline
any of the treatment plan options; or 3) consider the proposed plan for a period of time
(suggest 2 weeks). Normally the student and Faculty Advisor should not need to meet
with the patient a second time, but the student and Advisor should discuss questions that
the patient may still have after the clinical appointment.
f. If the patient approves one of the treatment plan options, the plan as well as any referrals
must be entered into axiUm at the end of the appointment. No significant changes can
be made to this plan without consent from the Advisor. It may be revised following the
results of any consultations. The patient will be required to sign acceptance of the
treatment plan and cost estimates in AxiUm, and a disclaimer that treatment options may
change depending on therapeutic outcomes and that costs estimates expire on year from
the date of signature. For some treatment options (for example ICD’s) the patient will
read and sign a consent form at this point. An informed consent competency will be
administered as part of this appointment once the Faculty Advisors believe that the
student is ready.
g. The treatment planning session will be graded in the normal manner. Students will be
expected to: know the treatment options available; to recommend the options that are
ideal, and the options that may be consistent with the patients chief concern; be able to
present approximate fees for the proposed treatments; communicate clearly, effectively
and with confidence; and, be able to properly complete charting and enter the treatment
plan and referrals into the axiUm system.
Treatment of Restorative Needs/Adjustment of Treatment Plan: After the treatment plan is
finalized, treatment will occur at normal Restorative or Periodontal clinic sessions. Students
must ensure that they seek faculty approval for specific steps at critical points in the treatment
process that are required by the advising group. The advising group also may require that
students confirm (with their Advisors) the quality of work going into or back from dental
laboratory. In the event that something does not go as planned in the patient’s treatment plan
that threatens the viability of the plan, the student must return to the advising group to discuss
and approve an alternative plan. Faculty on the clinic floor will not be responsible for significant
adjustments to treatments plans of patients with complex dental needs.
Outcomes Assessment Examination: To teach and ensure outcomes assessment, all complex
treatment plans will contain a final exam/prophylaxis appointment. Once the treatment plan is
complete, the student will see the patient for a final exam and prophylaxis. At this appointment
the patient will be examined to ensure that the treatment plan as been completed to the degree
the patient desires, that all treatment has acceptable clinical quality, that there are no additional
problems that have developed over the course of treatment, that final prophylaxis/management
instructions have been given, and that the patient is admitted into the recall system. The
outcomes assessment sheet will be completed by the student, signed by the faculty member,
and made part of the patient’s chart.
Evaluations of Faculty-Student Performance: Faculty advising groups may be asked to provide
evaluation of students periodically and students will have the opportunity to evaluate their
Advisors. In addition, the student will be required to take and pass competency examinations in
formulation of a treatment plan and in providing informed consent to a patient (see next section).
These examinations and evaluations will be managed by the Director and administered by the
Adjudication: In general the each group will be self-regulating as much as possible. The
concept of the group is that they can cover and compensate for each other to assure adequate
guidance for students. If irreconcilable problems occur among group members, the Chair of
ResD will adjudicate. The Chair/Director are the overall administrators of the advising system
and will adjudicate other issues as necessary. They will coordinate the composition of the
groups and any assessment of group and faculty performance. Results of group performance
will be reported to the Chair (see below).
During their third and fourth years, students will be required to complete two competency
examinations. In addition both faculty and students will be evaluated for performance.
Treatment planning competency exam: A competency examination in treatment planning will be
required in the fourth year, after the student has completed at least 5 (five) treatment plans with
their advising group, but then at the discretion of the advising group. RIDE students will take
their treatment planning competency exam in Eastern Washington. The advising group will
assess and pre-approve the patient to be used for the competency--the treatment required must
be sufficiently complex to warrant use on the competency exam. Once approved, the student
will obtain all the appropriate records and consults, then will formulate a written treatment plan
for the patient with appropriate options. The student will present this plan, without aid, to at
least one member of the advising group, then answer questions and defend the choices and
strategies in the plan. The Advisor(s) will then complete the treatment plan competency form
(see Appendix D); students must receive at least 70% of total points to pass. If the student
does not pass, s/he must retake the exam on another patient when the advising group feels
they are ready. Regardless of the final score on the examination, the student and faculty
member will discuss strengths and weakness of the student’s ability to formulate treatment
options for a patient. Scores will be reported to the Director.
Informed consent competency exam: Each student also will be required to take a competency in
obtaining appropriate informed consent from a patient. This competency may be completed in
either the third or fourth years, but may only be completed after the student has presented at
least 3 (three) treatment plans to patients in treatment planning appointments. At the treatment
planning appointment, the student will present treatment options to the patient and, without aid,
inform the patient of the risks and benefits of various treatment options, then arrive at a finalized
treatment plan. The presentation will be observed and graded by a covering faculty member,
who will grade the student using the informed consent evaluation form (see Appendix E). The
student must receive an 70% or better to pass the competency. If the student does not pass,
s/he must retake the exam on another patient. Regardless of the final score on the
examination, the student and faculty member will discuss strengths and weakness of the
student’s presentation and informed consent process. Scores will be reported to the Director.
Student evaluation by faculty: Faculty advising groups will provide student evaluations on
students’ ability to plan and manage patient treatment. Each student will be evaluated on a
quarterly basis, but a formal grade will only be issued at the end of years 3 (as part of ResD 630
and Pros 630) and 4 (as part of ResD 640 and Pros 640). This frequency of grading
accommodates the possibility that not all students will have sufficient experience with the
advising team in any quarter to permit a fair assessment. In the event that student
performance is not adequate (grade in ResD 630 or Pros 630 of < 3.0), the student also will be
evaluated at the end of Summer quarter (grade in ResD 535). Evaluations will be provided on
a form (see Appendix F) at the end of each quarter, which will be combined into a single
evaluation at year’s end. All members of the faculty advising group will contribute to the final
year-end assessment for each student.
Faculty evaluation by students: Students will provide faculty evaluations of members of their
advising group at the end of years 3 and 4. These evaluations will be done anonymously and
will be required to receive a grade in ResD 630/640 and Pros 630/640. Students will provide
feedback using a form (see Appendix F) or equivalent in the school’s online evaluation system.
The Director will manage administration of the evaluations; the Chair will monitor and distribute
results to the faculty.
(1) Participate fully and equitably in their group.
(2) Provide and keep adequate appointment times for student advising.
(3) Ensure/arrange for coverage for student advising in their absence (sick, professional
travel, vacation) in cases where necessary. On occasion, faculty from other advising
groups may be enrolled to help (e.g., a specific case where expertise is required that
other members of the group cannot meet).
(5) Communicate effectively within the group to ensure consistent advising for students and
appropriate treatment of patients. This communication can happen via email or periodic
meetings. Meet at least once per quarter to evaluate students.
(6) Treat students as professional participants in the process of planning and implementing
(7) Seek advise/help if cases require more expertise than the faculty member has, or a
(8) Provide constructive evaluation of student performance when requested by course
director. Administer competency examinations in treatment planning and informed
(9) Report problems to the Director/Chair of ResD if students are not fulfilling their
responsibilities, are acting unprofessionally, or are not able to appropriately manage and
coordinate the treatment of their patients.
Note: Faculty advising groups will have the authority to limit student treatment of a patient,
manage patient transfers, recommend that students be removed as providers for a
patient, assign grades as requested/required by course directors, or report on student
performance to the Director, ResDChair, Associate Dean for Clinics, or Dean as
requested or needed. Chair/Vice-Chair(s) will have ultimate authority over restorative
patient care management, in coordination with other departments or school leadership
(1) Maintain close communication with their faculty advising group on a regular basis for
each patient, as requested by their advising group.
(2) Come to appointments with the Faculty Advisors on time, with all relevant materials
needed, and intellectually prepared to discuss treatment.
(3) Ensure that they do not proceed with treatment without approval from the faculty
advising team for specific checkpoints (which are procedure dependent and patient
(4) Manage their laboratory cases in a timely manner.
(5) Pass competency examinations in treatment planning and informed consent.
(6) Not be intrusive on faculty members’ time outside of appointment times without
permission or advanced arrangements.
(7) Treat Faculty Advisors with professional courtesy and respect.
(8) Provide constructive evaluations of Faculty Advisors periodically.
(9) Contact the Chair if faculty are not fulfilling their responsibilities as Advisors.
Appendix A-Current Student Advising Groups (Restorative (above) and Perio (below)
Dr. Mats Kronström
Dr. Andy Marashi
Dr. Glen Johnson
Dr. Ricardo Schwedhelm
Dr. Marty Anderson
Dr. John Wataha
Dr. Sami Dogan
Dr. Xavier Lepe
Dr. John Townsend
Dr. Kavita Shor
Dr. Hai Zhang
Dr. Albert Chung
Dr. Gabriela Ibarra
Dr. Tom Helbert
Dr. Tar-Chee Aw
Dr. Doug Verhoef
Mondays: Dr. Robert O’Neal
Tuesdays: Dr. Thomas Flemmig
Wednesdays: Dr. Johnny Wang
Thursdays: Dr. Frank Roberts
Fridays: Dr. Manoj Muthukuru
Appendix B-Guidelines for Oral Conditions Appropriate for Care by Predoctoral Students
Operative and Fixed Prosthodontics
These “Guidelines” suggest limitations on the abilities of undergraduate dental students to maintain a
standard of care which should include the ability to complete quality comprehensive treatment in a
reasonable period of time. Extremely complex treatment plans, those with a guarded or poor prognosis,
or those that typically should be treated by dental specialists, should not be assigned to the
undergraduate Restorative Clinic.
Good or Acceptable Cases:
1. Obvious caries or defective restorations expected to be restorable with direct restorations.
2. Failing amalgam or composite restorations where crowns might be indicated.
3. Patients whose potential treatment plan could normally progress fast enough for a student to
control the disease process without continued deterioration of the remaining dentition.
4. Patients requesting esthetic procedures, i.e., veneers or anterior C&B. Requests for bleaching
will only be acceptable if other restorative services are clearly indicated.
5. One or two edentulous spaces in any quadrant that might be indicated for bridges or implants.
6. Implant cases involving single tooth or two adjacent tooth restorations. Potential implant cases
involving more than 3 implants are normally not suitable for under-grad teaching, but may be
considered as a part of a more comprehensive plan. Patients should never be told that implants
will be provided until after treatment planning by both restorative and surgical departments.
7. Combination cases involving multiple disciplines, are encouraged, but only to the extent that the
previous indications are met.
Patients must understand that we are here to provide comprehensive dental care, and not treatments for
selected procedures only.
Patients should demonstrate adequate financial means or dental insurance which would allow for
reasonable treatment planning options, and an ability to make schedule appointments.
Patients must understand that work will progress much more slowly than in a private office.
Poor or Unacceptable cases:
1. Multiple “bombed out” teeth with rampant caries, unless expected to be extracted and treated with
2. Extreme occlusal wear demonstrating short, flat occlusal and incisal surfaces, and expected to
require restoration at an increased vertical dimension of occlusion or “full-mouth” reconstruction.
Undergraduate cases will NEVER be allowed to restore dentition at an increased vertical
dimension of occlusion.
3. Multiple missing teeth in both arches where condition of occlusal plane is not easily correctable.
4. Not more than 2-3 obviously failing crowns (recurrent caries or other defect).
5. No more than a total of 10 existing crown and bridge units (intact or defective). Replacement of
multiple defective crowns is not predictable; can take an excessive amount of time; and, is not a
good teaching experience.
6. Extensive root caries (more than 3-4 teeth).
7. Multiple implants. More than 2 in the same quadrant. Final approval to be made by Dr.
Kronstrom or implant advisor.
8. Crown and bridge units will not be covered by DSHS. Patients should be advised before
assignment to student for comprehensive care.
9. Patients “demanding” that specific treatments be accomplished or who have unrealistic
expectations. (I want “caps” on all of my teeth to make me look younger”, or, “I want all of my
amalgam fillings replaced with white fillings”)
Common Problems During the Treatment Phase
1. Conditions that are so extensive that caries control cannot keep up with continued deterioration of
the dentition. Students are only able to work on one or two teeth at a time. Teeth are lost –
possibly unnecessarily. Patient complaints.
2. Patients do not understand that there are many things that we cannot or will not do, despite
treatment plans generated by “outside” dentists. For example, we will not attempt to place a
crown on what we consider to be a non-restorable tooth.
3. Patients do not understand that although our fees are lower, we cannot propose a logical
treatment plan that would meet all of their needs and still be affordable to them. (Patients desire
all edentulous spaces restored with bridges, and will not accept a removable prosthesis.)
4. Patients expect that all teeth can be restored. Not all teeth are restorable. Many teeth might only
be restorable with expensive specialty care – and then with an unpredictable prognosis. It is not
practical to spend time and money on one tooth while the rest of the dentition is ignored. UG
students cannot be expected to spend all of their time with one patient, while others are
5. Many teeth with radiographically identified deep caries may be non-restorable. A referral to the
Department of Endodontics does not guarantee that RCT will be performed or that the
Department of Restorative Dentistry will place a crown.
6. The restorative treatment plan is determined to be too complex. This may include: too many
defective crown and bridge units; severe occlusal wear necessitating extensive occlusal
rehabilitation or increase in the vertical dimension of occlusion; extensive root caries on more
than a few teeth; medical or behavioral conditions that would be best treated in Fears, DECOD,
GPR, or Faculty Practice. Very few patients are accepted to Graduate Prosthodontics.
1. Be sure that patient is available for many lengthy appointments and in some cases treatment may
take up to a full year.
2. Be sure financing is available.
3. We need relatively healthy patients; patients with compromised health are too difficult for
4. We need patients with a relatively good occlusion and interarch relationship where students will
not struggle to set denture teeth.
5. Patients who want or need many implants should be referred to Grad Pros, Faculty Pros or to PP.
6. Be sure the patient is truly interested in a removable treatment option.
Ask them directly “Are you interested in a removable appliance to replace your missing teeth?”
7. If the patient has large Tori/Exostosis that will interfere with the fabrication of a CD or RPD be
sure the patient is healthy enough and willing to undergo surgical removal.
1. Excessive resorption of ridges is OK, if patient has reasonable expectations.
Ask yourself, are patient’s expectations reasonable?
Ask patient if they will consider and if they can afford 2 mandibular implants for retention.
2. Good ridges but unrealistic expectations, the patient is not a good candidate.
Ask yourself, “Do I want this person as a patient?”
3. ICD patients that require general anesthesia should be referred to Hospital Dentistry for both the
extractions and the dentures.
Removable Partial Dentures
1. Patient may first have to undergo initial care and take care of urgent needs, perio, and caries
control before we can commit to treat the patient.
2. CONTRAINDICATION: Patient with rampant caries who will not or can not improve home care.
3. CONTRAINDICATION: Kennedy Class IV with large edentulous area.
4. CONTRAINDICATION: RPD patient with supra-erupted teeth and inadequate room for denture
5. EXPECTATION: Food will collect under a RPD. This is a sure thing when chewing food.
6. Swinglock RPD’s may not be possible if less than 5 anterior teeth remaining, should have at least
1 canine and patient should accept the appearance and possibly showing the bar. Also patient
must be able to lock and unlock RPD bar.
7. RPD’s designs with attachments should be referred to Grad Pros, Faculty Pros or to PP.
8. RPD patients who will need an Increase in Vertical Dimension should be referred to Grad Pros,
Faculty Pros or to PP.
Appendix C-Patient Oral Conditions Requiring Advising System Management (2009-
Oral Condition/Treatment involves: Comment
Fixed partial dentures. **All bridges (regardless of # of units). Specific
check points at discretion of advising group.
**More than 4 individual crowns or more than 2
adjacent individual crowns.
**Failing crowns or bridges.
**Involves change in or restoration of excursive
mandibular guidance. Note, cannot involve
change in vertical dimension.
**Single crowns as abutments for removable
**PFM crowns in upper anterior, any number of
Implants **All treatments involving new or existing
implants. Note: specific Advisor in each
advising group must manage these treatments.
Esthetic cases, particularly in the upper anterior, and particularly **All in-house bleaching. Note: specific Advisor
those that cross the mid-line in each advising group must manage these
**All-ceramic crowns, any number of units.
**All veneers, ceramic or composite
Complete dentures **All types.
Removable Partial dentures **All types.
Periodontal conditions that complicate restorative treatment **Note: may require coordination of advising
group with a perio faculty member.
Patients with Special Problems **Systemic disease (physical or mental) that
complicates treatment or increases risk of
*Note: Exceptions may occur and will be determined by the advising group and the Chair/Vice Chair(s) of the
Department. A conservative approach (error on the side of closer student advisement is encouraged), particularly
for less experienced students. Advising faculty may give more experience greater latitude in independently
managing cases, depending on the student’s past performance, the patient’s needs, and the best judgment of the
Appendix D- Treatment Planning Competency Evaluation Form (in progress 2009-0801)
Area Assessment Comments
Collection of data is accurate and complete to arrive
at a diagnostic list and formulate a comprehensive 0*
plan of treatment 10
-all patient queries made (eg chief complaint)
-needed records obtained 15
-complete histories obtained (including medical) 20
-quality of records allow proper diagnosis
-needed consults identified and obtained 25
Synthesis of Information from all sources and all
diagnoses considered in development of treatment 0
-medical (health hx, consults)
-behaviorial (limitations, coping ability) 15
-esthetic (patient’s needs/desires) 20
-soft-tissue (periodontal and intraoral) 25
-skeletal (as appropriate)
-occlusal (including parafunction)
Treatment options consider and account for the
patient’s diagnoses, needs, and desires 0
Sequencing of treatment considers impact on the
-achieving goals, satisfying patient concerns
-stability of treatment 15
*Grading Criteria; 70 points or greater required to pass, with NO critical errors.
0 Lack of judgment that would result in failure of treatment or significant or irreversible harm to a patient; Critical error.
10 Gap in judgment which would hinder the successful treatment of patients condition or patient’s safety, but is correctible,
albeit at higher cost or time or discomfort.
15 Errors that cause increases costs, inconvenience, or time to the patient but do not compromise patient health or well
20 Minor errors that do not compromise treatment or patient well being, but incur slightly longer treatment times or higher
25 No significant errors, patient-centered, comprehensive clinical judgments and insights.
Appendix E- Informed Consent Competency Evaluation Form (in progress 2009-0801)
Area Assessment Comments
Preparation for the case presentation
-all records needed are available 0*
-records are organized 10
-records are professionally prepared and presented
-demonstration aids are available as needed 15
Presentation of the treatment options
-pace good and spoken clearly 10
-consideration for patient’s level of intellect
-student maintains professional appearance/demeanor 15
-student shows respect and compassion for the patient’s view 20
Presentation of risk-benefits of treatment options
-are discussed thoroughly and accurately 0
-are balanced accurately based on evidence based knowledge 10
-are presented without bias
-address patient concerns and questions 15
-leads to ability of patient to select a treatment option and sign 20
Student’s intellectual grasp/ability to answer questions
-student comprehends the treatments and the issues 0
-able to answer questions accurately, and without help 10
-admits when does not know, seeks answers
-answers are not defensive 15
*Grading Criteria; 70 points required to pass, with NO critical errors.
0 Poor presentation that lacked balance, professional quality, organization, clarity, or contained biases that if uncorrected
by faculty would lead patient to an uniformed or inappropriate treatment choice; Critical error.
10 Poor presentation of treatment options, leading to patient confusion and numerous questions; multiple attempts by
student were necessary to clearly inform patient...
15 Presentation was fair, some patient questions required to clarify, or explanations were not efficient or organized or lacked
needed records or aids--lead to some confusion of patient.
20 Good presentation, but minor errors that did not compromise the patient’s ability to choose, but made the choice less
efficient or required additional questions and explanations.
25 No errors that compromised patient’s understanding or ability to make an informed choice about treatment..
Appendix F- Form for evaluation of student by Faculty Advising Team (in progress 2009-
Area Assessment Comments
Preparation for Sessions 1.5*
-comes with appropriate documents 2.5
Level of Knowledge
-knows relevant facts 2.0
-looks up what s/he doesn’t know
-recalls information required 2.5
Synthesis/integration of information
-able to apply principles 2.0
-draws from all sources of information
-considers alternatives 2.5
-plans for contigencies 3.0
-finds inconsistencies in data
Interpersonal Behaviors 1.5
-shows respect for Advisor
-takes criticism well 2.5
-shows respect for patient situation 3.0
-respects instructor’s time
-professional/ethical attitude 3.5
* Grades are UW SOD grading system scale
** Insufficient Experience during this interval
Appendix G- Form for Faculty Advisor by Student (in progress 2009-0801)
Area Assessment Comments
Level of Expertise 1*
-knows relevant facts
-refers if s/he does not know 3
Quality of explanations 1*
Interpersonal Behaviors 1*
-shows respect for student
-respects questions/challenges 3
-shows respect for patient situation 4
-respects student’s time
-professional/ethical attitude 5
*1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3= satisfactory, 4 = good, 5 = outstanding
Appendix H- Form for Treatment Outcomes Assessment (under development)