This initial report on the successful implementation of the proposed point system to assess dental students' clinical performance suggests that the concept has the potential for widespread utilization by dental schools, after adaptation of the key concepts to the specific context of the school and the overarching healthcare system 5 . This system also encourages students to achieve specific patient care or clinical educational goals while meeting the needs of the community (Figure 3). This system provides a universal approach to student assessment in other health care disciplines. For example, it could be adapted to dental assisting programs, if the procedures covered within their scope of practice are relatively weighted to each other based on the amount of time and skills needed to complete the procedure. The system is simple, practical, and can be easily integrated with the school’s patient care system 6 . Preliminary reports indicate that the proposed system enhances student clinical productivity. Namely: the number of cases and points accumulated have increased following initial implementation of the system as shown in Figure 2. Qualitative data obtained in focus group meetings with the students, indicate that students are now more motivated to tackle complex cases with confidence. Moreover, initial data indicates patient satisfaction with the service provided. Quantitative analysis of students’ motivation, level of confidence to initiate and stabilize complex cases, and referral decisions will be assessed in a follow-up report. Thus described, the system carries advantages for the multiple stakeholder involved in the comprehensive care program. For educators, it provides objective means for evaluating and monitoring students’ performance. Students’ performance can be tracked and underperforming students can be identified and remediated. For program directors, the system provides a systematic and fair method for the distribution of cases amongst students. For students, it encourages them to maximize clinical productivity without overlooking the need to excel in procedural skills, and assuring quality of care. For the individual patient, the system helps track patients’ progress on the outlined treatment plan, provides clear stable target for case needs while serving the needs of the community, and establishes a reliable referral system between undergraduate level and postgraduate/specialty training programs. This system was initiated in 2015 at the Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdul-Aziz University (KAUFD). The system builds on a validated framework for the assessment of the degree of case complexity using UCU. UCU is based on the average amount of clinical time needed by the average, mid-trained, student to finish a clinical procedure and the level of skill required to complete this procedure. UCU are relatively weighted across the variant dental disciplines (Tables 1-5). UCU are awarded for the initial preparation stage of treatment to encourage students to control the disease and motivate the patient to maintain good oral hygiene and prevent further disease. Additional weighted UCU are also awarded for difficulty factors complicating the case, such as behavioral issues or medical conditions (Table 6). The system is linked to the dental school Electronic Health Record (HER) system, which generates an automated summation of the total UCU after approval of the definitive treatment plan by the students’ clinical mentor. The granted commutative UCU for each case determines the weight the case will contribute to the student’s clinical grade and determines the number of cases to be completed, using a predetermined equation. The process of validation of this system will be outlined in a subsequent report. Many problems with current systems of assessing case difficulty in case completion curricula are avoided using this framework. For instance, the three cases displayed in Figure 1 are classified as Type 4, according to the new Harvard School of Dental Medicine Clinical Case Classification System, which categorizes cases by case type and typical procedures required for each. However, UCU profiling of these case show the great variation in their UCU, and hence, the skills and time required to manage the case, and subsequently, the grades awarded. The UCU also determines the weight for each discipline in determining the quality grade for the case. Further, the UCU helps the student, with guidance, determine the realistic goals for treatment of each case, appropriate to his/her level, in order to provide the patient with a stable, hygienic, and disease free oral environment. It is important to state that completion of phase I therapy demonstrated by achievement of a stable, dental disease free, and hygienic oral environment, in a medically controlled patient, is an important cornerstone of this system, with emphasis on the importance of referral and consultation skills. The preliminary assessment of student outcomes, following the implementation of this system will be presented by comparing students’ productivity before and after the initiation of this system. Authors: Imam A, B.D.S, MSc., FRCDC. and Agou S, B.D.S, MSc.CH[HPTE], M.Ed (c), Ph.D, ABO Diplomat Affiliations: Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University AIM RESULTS CONCLUSIONS MATERIALS & METHODS Procedure Unit Value Oral hygiene instructions 1 Supragingival scaling and prophylaxix 0.5 SRP anterior (per sextant) 0.5 SRP posterior (per sextant) 0.75 Maximum point for 6 sixtants SRP 4 Re-Evaluation of Phase I 1.5 Maintenance 2 Assisting in Implant/periodontal surgery 2 Observing implant placement 1 Re-evaluation of a case with a comprehensive periodontal examination full mouth (CPEFM) 4 Table 1: Periodontal Procedures Points Procedure Unit Value Simple Class II “ No Adjacent tooth” 0.5 Occ. Proximal Class II “OM or OD” 1.5 MOD Class II 2 Class I simple occlusal Amalgam/ composite 0.5 Buccal/ lingual extentions of Class I 0.25 Class V (composite) 0.5 Simple Proximal Class III 0.5 Class III Lingual approach 1.5 Class III through and through 2 Class IV 2 Large buildup Amalgam/ large anterior build up/ or composite veneers 2 Bleaching Session 2 Caries Control restoration “ GI” 0.5 Root caries 0.5 Table 2: Operative Dentistry Procedures Points: Procedure Unit Value Endodontic emergency/ Case 0.5 Access Cavity preparation/tooth 0.5 Working Length Determination/Canal 0.5 Cleaning and Shaping or obturation/ Canal 0.5 Re-evaluation of own previous RCT 1 Additional points for re-treatment/ canal 0.5 Apexogenesis procedure “MTA”/ canal 0.5 Apexification procedure anterior tooth/canal 0.5 perforation repair/ site 0.5 Table 3: Endodontic Procedures Points: Procedure Unit Value Crown/Veneer/Onlay or FPD (points added when required)/ tooth Primary Impression/ Arch 0.5 abutment preparation/ tooth 1.5 Final impression/ tooth 1.5 Provisional crown/ tooth 1 Provisional Pontic/ pontic 0.5 Metal try-in 1 Soldering 1 Porcelain try-in 1 Final Cementation 1 Pontic For Final FPD/ pontic 2 Post and cores (points added when required)/ tooth Post space preparation 0.5 Core Buildup/or GC Pattern 0.5 Metal try-in 1 Final Cementation 1 Repair of existing fixed prosthesis 1 Table 4: Fixed Prosthodontics Procedures Points: Procedure Unit Value Definitive RPD (free-end saddle) 1ry Impression/Arch 0.5 Surveying and designing 1 Rest preparation/ tooth 0.5 Peripheral Molding 1.5 Final impression 1.5 Framework try-in 1.5 Jaw Relation/prosthesis 0.75 Teeth set-up try-in/ Arch 0.75 Insertion 1 Altered cast 1 1.5 Complete Denture 1ry Impression/Arch 0.5 Peripheral Molding/arch 1.5 Final Impression/arch 1.5 Jaw relation/ Arch 0.75 Teeth try in/Arch 0.75 Denture delivery/Arch 1 Transitional RPD “points are considered when indicated” 1ry Impression/Arch 0.5 Peripheral Molding/arch 1.5 Final Impression/arch 1.5 Jaw relation/ Arch 0.75 Teeth try in 1 Delivery 1 Overdenture/coping/attachment/locator 1 Immediate CD relining and Follow up 1 Follow-up of complete denture/ Arch 0.5 Implant Tx planning (including RG and surgical stent) 1 Table 5: Removable Prosthodontics Procedures Points: Figure 1: The UCU for three comprehensive care cases, classified as Harvard Type 4 case. 5* 2015 4* 2015 3* 2015 6* 2016 5* 2016 4* 2016 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 A students B students C students Figure 2: Bar chart comparing the cumulative UCU for A,B, and C students in the academic year 2015 and 2016 While comprehensive care curricula are becoming a cornerstone requirement in dental schools aspiring to meet accreditation standards, the implementation of this concept remains a struggle 1-3 . One of the important challenges typically presented when a case completion approach is employed, is determining the degree of case complexity, given the scarcity of solid objective and validated methods to evaluate the difficulty of cases presented 4 . This is particularly important for millennial students demanding transparent, objective assessment, and explicit guidelines for evaluation 4 . This poster aims to outline the development and outcomes of an objective system for evaluating and monitoring dental students’ clinical performance in a comprehensive care course. The system builds on a validated framework for the assessment of the degree of case complexity, based on Universal Comprehensive dental care Unit value (UCU). We here propose that UCU lays the ground for an objective method for case allocation and case grading, that encourages students to provide high quality comprehensive care for cases, within their scope of practice, despite the varying degree of complexity of these cases. Solutions to issues encountered in case completion curricula are suggested. *Average number of cases completed by the students Development of a System to Assess Students' Comprehensive Care Performance Procedure Unit Value Procedure Unit Value Procedure Unit Value Consultation/Referral/ Interpretation 1 Handling a medical condition 2 Behavioral management 2 Table 6: Holistic Patient Care Points: Case 1: 50 UCU Case 2: 160 UCU Case 3: 80 UCU 1. Al-Alawi, H., Al-Shayeb, M., Al-Jawad, A., Al-Ali, A., & Mahrous, A. (2015). Evaluation of a comprehensive clinical dentistry course at dental schools in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Dental Research and Review, 2(1), 5. 2. Adibi, S. S., Chaluparambil, J., Chambers, S. K., Estes, K., Valenza, J. A., & Walji, M. F. (2012). Assessing the delivery of comprehensive care at a dental school. Tex Dent J, 129(12), 1267-1275. 3. Nulty, D. D., Short, L. M., & Johnson, N. W. (2010). Improving assessment in dental education through a paradigm of comprehensive care: A case report. Journal of dental education, 74(12), 1367-1379. 4. Teich, S. T., Roperto, R., Alonso, A. A., & Lang, L. A. (2016). Design and Outcomes of a Comprehensive Care Experience Level System to Evaluate and Monitor Dental Students’ Clinical Progress. Journal of dental education, 80(6), 662-669. 5. Park, S. E., Timothé, P., Nalliah, R., Karimbux, N. Y., & Howell, T. H. (2011). A case completion curriculum for clinical dental education: replacing numerical requirements with patient-based comprehensive care. Journal of dental education, 75(11), 1411-1416. 6. Albino, J. E., Young, S. K., Neumann, L. M., Kramer, G. A., Andrieu, S. C., Henson, L., ... & Hendricson, W. D. (2008). Assessing dental students’ competence: best practice recommendations in the performance assessment literature and investigation of current practices in predoctoral dental education. Journal of Dental Education, 72(12), 1405-1435. REFERENCES Figure 3: The goals of the comprehensive care program at KAUFD ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to thank Dr. Noha A. Alkurdi for her valuable assistance in designing this poster…