Comparative Evaluation of Syndicate with Conventional Method of Case Discussion by the Post Graduates from Dept. of Orthodontics

Background: Basics of every aspect must be know thoroughly to JR1 with active participation during the discussion to understand any case. Active participation is must irrespective of the syllabus distributed for the PG in the syllabus as per the DCI guidelines. The cognitive knowledge, clinically for any case should not be year specific based on the syllabus, but, a collective and collaborative foundation of understanding. So to reframe the methodology of and to make the case discussion more effective, a study was planned. Study Protocol Daigavane et al.; JPRI, 33(61A): 240-244, 2021; Article no.JPRI.80836 241 Study design: Crosssectional observational Methodology: the following study will be conducted with the JR of dept of orthodontics SPDC, For comparison between the conventional and syndicate case discussion, the conventional case discussion will be entitled as Group I; while syndicate case discussion will be entitles as group II. They will be asked to present the case as per the suggested syllabus recommended by the DCI for each academic year respectively. Pre-test and post-test feedback will be taken after each presentation. Also, perception form the faulty as well as the post graduates will be taken after each presentation. Expected Outcome: the detailed case discussion from the etiology and treatment modality to the retention phase can help the JRI to understand the basics of any case. The feedback and posttest of the syndicate format might be a better way to present as compared to the conventional method. Conclusion: The syndicate case discussion is a better way to understand any case from the initial stage to the last stage of retention with inclusion of all the JR in the presentation of a case.


INTRODUCTION
In the process of learning students are expected to extract maximum knowledge. Basics of every aspect must be known thoroughly to JR1 with active participation during the discussion to understand any case [1].
When the JR3 is presenting a case report in a PG activity except the basics the further presentation is not clear to the JR1 if they have not read the article prior to presentation.
Active participation is must irrespective of the syllabus distributed for the PG in the syllabus as per the DCI guidelines.
The cognitive knowledge, clinically for any case should not be year specific based on the syllabus, but, a collective and collaborative foundation of understanding.
When it comes to a clinical case report mostly it is seen that the students are allotted the responsibilities to learn the case based on the envelope defined to them by the syllabus framed by the council. Whereas it can be hypothesized that basic knowledge of the 2 nd and 3 rd year syllabus if presented by the JR1 can activate the thinking process in the initial days of learning thus giving a scope to learn and implement for further scope and recent advances when they are promoted to next year of their postgraduation; which is even true for the JR3.
So to reframe the methodology of and to make the case discussion more effective, a study was planned.

Aim
To evaluate and compare the Syndicate with Conventional method of Case Discussion by the Post Graduates from Dept. of Orthodontics.

Study Design
Cross-sectional observational.

Duration of the Study
1 year.

METHODOLOGY
The study will be conducted in the Department of Orthodontics, SPDC with the guidance of SHPER, DMIMS (DU), after the receival of the approval from the institutional ethical committee DMIMS(DU). All the 18 Post graduates and the faculty from HOD, Professor to Asst. Professor from the department will be participating in the research.
While, under graduate students and Post graduates and Faculty from other dept will be excluded from the study.
For comparison between the conventional and syndicate case discussion, the conventional case discussion will be entitled as Group I; where, 3 post graduates one from each academic year will be randomly selected to present a case in PG activity. They will be asked to present the case as per the suggested syllabus recommended by the DCI for each academic year respectively. Where in JR1 may focus more on etiology and classification and basics, JR2 may focus more on the diagnosis part while JR3 may focus more on the treatment modalities.
Pre test and post test feedback will be taken after each presentation. Also, perception form the faulty as well as the post graduates will be taken after each presentation.
The syndicate case discussion will be entitled as Group II; where one Postgraduate each from the academic year will present one case report. 3 days prior to the presentation the abstract of the case report and the article will be given to the faculty and PGs for their referral. As guided to prepare the presentation, JR1will focus on review, etiology, incidence, etc with brief introduction of the complete case. JR2 will focus on Differential diagnosis, review, tool is diagnosis, etc with brief introduction of various treatment modalities while JR3 is expected to compile data along with discussion, treatment modalities, future scope, meta analytic review, references, clinical implication, recent advances, etc. two such case discussion will be conducted in the department.
Pre test and post test feedback will be taken after each presentation. Also, perception form the faulty as well as the post graduates will be taken after each presentation.

Need Analysis
Faculty: ____________________ JR___1 / 2 / 3 1. Are you familiar with the term syndicate 2. Why does a post graduate present a case report in a PG activity? 3. What is expected from a post graduate after attending a case report in a post graduate? 4. If a JR3 is presenting a case report in PG activity, are the basics of the topic covered in details with crystal clear concepts to the JR1? 5. How can it be rectified? 6. Kindly suggest and comment on : should a case report be divided based on the cognitive knowledge and syllabus for a JR from each year explaining the details accordingly.

Statistical Analysis
• Pretest & Posttest will be assessed by ALG score will be compared for group I and II. (presenter and listener) • Faculty and staff perception will be assessed as follows.

-
Closed question -LIKERT scale -Open question quantitative assessment (manual content analysis method)

EXPECTED OUTCOME
The detailed case discussion from the etiology and treatment modality to the retention phase can help the JRI to understand the basics of any case. The feedback and posttest of the syndicate format might be a better way to present as compared to the conventional method.

DISCUSSION
In 2015 Lohe et al. [2] evaluated effectiveness of syndicate learning in oral medicine and radiology for UG students, where they concluded that syndicate learning is more interesting, becomes a platform for creative interchanging of ideas and a live session for a meaningful participation ad discussion.
In 2019 Ingole et al. [3] published a copyright on Incorporating Syndicate journal club in postgraduate teaching progrramme at DMIMS, where the syndicate teaching learning enhanced presentation skill and mastered the ability to critically appraise the evidence.
In 2019 Uppal et al. [4][5] introduced syndicate teaching learning in first MBBS students and concluded that this technique has better retention of knowledge and exchange of idea [6][7][8][9].

CONCLUSION
The syndicate case discussion is a better way to understand any case from the initial stage to the last stage of retention with inclusion of all the JR in the presentation of a case.

CONSENT
As per international standard or university standard, patients' written consent will be collected and preserved by the author(s).

ETHICAL APPROVAL
The study will be conducted in the Department of Orthodontics, SPDC with the guidance of SHPER, DMIMS(DU), after the receival of the approval from the institutional ethical committee DMIMS(DU).