Suppr超能文献

认证作为专业认可的替代方式。

Accreditation as an alternative to specialty recognition.

作者信息

Chancellor James W

出版信息

Tex Dent J. 2002 Mar;119(3):248-51.

Abstract

The Commission on Dental Accreditation does not currently accredit postdoctoral training in general anesthesia. This is related to the traditional linkage of accreditation of postdoctoral training programs to ADA specialty recognition. The aforementioned ADA Guidelines are important because they provide the foundation for the continued use of sedation and general anesthesia within dentistry. The one mechanism that would "ensure safety and effective use," maintain "a strong educational foundation," provide "access to adequate training ... develop programs at the postgraduate level" and support expansion of both basic and clinical research is CDA accreditation of postdoctoral programs. Prior to 1991, hen general anesthesia training was acquired by dentists primarily through accredited medical programs, there was little need for anything more than guidelines to protect the public. With the development of non-accredited dental anesthesiology programs in accredited dental schools (primarily in the late 1980's) and the loss of access to general anesthesia training in accredited medical anesthesiology residency programs in the summer of 1991, primary responsibility for all general anesthesia training of dentists shifted to organized dentistry. However, the ADA House declined to recognize dental anesthesiology as a dental specialty on three separate occasions even though the ADA Council on Dental Education felt all requirements were met and favorably recommended specialty recognition in all three instances. Specialty recognition would have provided the needed accreditation mechanism to validate dentistry's continued use of deep sedation and general anesthesia by those practitioners not classified as oral and maxillofacial surgeons. As an alternative to the specialty recognition process and in view of the need to accredit postdoctoral general anesthesia training for dentists, the American Society of Dentist Anesthesiologists has recently requested the CDA offer accreditation for these dental programs. To address this issue and those of other non-ADA-recognized disciplines, the CDA is currently in the initial stages of developing requirements for accrediting non-ADA recognized postdoctoral training programs. This material will be circulated to communities of interest for their input. Details of the process will be forthcoming from ADA sources in the near future.

摘要

牙科认证委员会目前未对全身麻醉方面的博士后培训进行认证。这与博士后培训项目认证与美国牙科协会(ADA)专业认可的传统联系有关。上述ADA指南很重要,因为它们为牙科领域持续使用镇静和全身麻醉提供了基础。能够“确保安全有效使用”、维持“强大教育基础”、提供“获得充分培训的途径……开展研究生层次项目”并支持基础研究和临床研究扩展的唯一机制是CDA对博士后项目的认证。1991年之前,当时牙医主要通过经认证的医学项目获得全身麻醉培训,除了指南之外几乎不需要其他东西来保护公众。随着经认证的牙科学院中出现未经认证的牙科麻醉学项目(主要在20世纪80年代后期)以及1991年夏季在经认证的医学麻醉学住院医师项目中无法获得全身麻醉培训,牙医所有全身麻醉培训的主要责任转移到了有组织的牙科领域。然而,ADA大会曾三次拒绝将牙科麻醉学认定为牙科专业,尽管ADA牙科教育委员会认为所有要求均已满足,并在所有这三种情况下都积极推荐专业认定。专业认定本可为那些未被归类为口腔颌面外科医生的从业者继续使用深度镇静和全身麻醉提供所需的认证机制。作为专业认定过程的替代方案,并且鉴于需要对牙医的博士后全身麻醉培训进行认证,美国牙科麻醉医师协会最近请求CDA为这些牙科项目提供认证。为解决此问题以及其他未被ADA认可学科的问题,CDA目前正处于制定对未被ADA认可的博士后培训项目进行认证要求的初始阶段。该材料将分发给相关利益群体以征求他们的意见。该过程的详细信息将在不久后由ADA方面公布。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验