This study aims to investigate burnout and study engagement among medical students at Sun Yat-sen University, China.A cross-sectional survey was conducted among undergraduate medical students of Sun Yat-sen University, China. A total of 453 undergraduate students completed a self-administered, structured questionnaire between January and February, 2016. Burnout and study engagement were measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey (MBI-SS) and the UTRECHT Work Engagement Scale-Students (UWES-S), respectively. Subjects who scored high in emotional exhaustion subscale, high in cynicism subscale, and low in professional efficacy subscale simultaneously were graded as having high risk of burnout. Independent sample t tests and chi-square tests were used to compare the differences in burnout and work engagement between genders, majors, and grade levels.The means (standard deviations) of the MBI-SS subscales were 3.42 (1.45) for emotional exhaustion, 2.34 (1.64) for cynicism, and 3.04 (1.30) for professional efficacy. The means (standard deviations) of the UWES-S subscales were 3.13 (1.49) for vigor, 3.44 (1.47) for dedication and 3.00 (1.51) for absorption. Approximately 1 in 11 students experienced a high risk of burnout. There were no statistically significant gender differences in burnout and study engagement. There were also no statistically significant differences in burnout and study engagement subscales according to student major. Students in higher grades displayed increased burnout risk, higher mean burnout subscale score of cynicism, lower mean burnout subscale score of professional efficacy, and decreased mean study engagement subscale scores of dedication and absorption. There were strong correlations within study engagement subscales.Chinese medical students in this university experience a high level of burnout. Students at higher-grade level experience more burnout and decreased study engagement compared with students in lower level.

BACKGROUND: Preventable medical errors in hospital settings are the third leading cause of deaths in the United States. However, less is known about harm that occurs in patients in outpatient settings, where the majority of care is delivered. We do not know the likelihood that a patient sitting in a dentist chair will experience harm. Additionally, we do not know if patients of certain race, age, sex, or socioeconomic status disproportionately experience iatrogenic harm. METHODS: We initiated the Dental Practice Study (DPS) with the aim of determining the frequency and types of adverse events (AEs) that occur in dentistry on the basis of retrospective chart audit. This article discusses the 6-month pilot phase of the DPS during which we explored the feasibility and efficiency of our multistaged review process to detect AEs. RESULTS: At sites 1, 2, and 3, respectively, 2 reviewers abstracted 21, 11, and 23 probable AEs, respectively, from the 100 patient charts audited per site. At site 2, a third reviewer audited the same 100 charts and found only 1 additional probable AE. Of the total 56 probable AEs (from 300 charts), the expert panel confirmed 9 AE cases. This equals 3 AEs per 100 patients per year. Patients who experienced an AE tended to be male and older and to have undergone more procedures within the study year. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents an overview of the DPS. It describes the methods used and summarizes the results of its pilot phase. To minimize threats to dental patient safety, a starting point is to understand their basic epidemiology, both in terms of their frequency and the extent to which they affect different populations.