Search

Introduction Retaining and Returning Advisers (RRAs) were appointed to postgraduate dental deaneries in England in 2002 as part of the Government's strategy to retain the dental workforce and support return to practice following a career break. The study aimed to review RRAs' activities and consider the overall success of the RRA initiative five years from inception (2007). Design and methods A case study design, conducted in three phases, drawing on qualitative data. In Phase 1, semi-structured interviews were held with all RRAs in England (n = 12). Phase 2 involved an electronic survey of all 12 postgraduate dental deans in England (n = 10). In Phase 3, analysis was undertaken and a final report prepared. Results RRAs have been flexible in responding to the changing policy context, and devolved funding for the role to the local, deanery level. They have adapted to support more diverse target groups including those seeking vocational training equivalence and underperforming dentists. Future priorities were envisaged to be associated with primary care trusts' commissioning and quality assurance responsibilities, and supporting all members of the dental team. Conclusion RRAs have become well-established in deaneries and have made a successful contribution to addressing workforce and educational needs for a diverse group of practitioners.

This is an abridged version of Margaret Seward's Donald Taylor Memorial Lecture delivered on February 20, 1996, during the 75th anniversary celebrations of the Royal Army Dental Corps. The annual lecture is held to honour the unique contribution of Brigadier Donald Vernon Taylor CBE to the RADC and to the wider profession of dentistry

The first newspaper for a fortnight is always read avidly by any homeward bound traveller. So it was for the passengers on Flight KL872 on Monday, November 4 after a Conference in Pakistan and India with the Royal College of Surgeons of England. It was not long before Guardian readers had found the article 'In the ruins of the Raj' by Mark Tully.* Uncannily, it recounted the splendour and majesty of the countries we had visited and yet, at the same time, expressed our fears for the future of these delightfully hospitable and intelligent people who had been our hosts in Pakistan and India for two weeks.

Joseph Merrick was one of three children. His mother and younger sister were cripples, but their disease is unknown. Joseph's own swellings began to appear in early childhood and he rapidly became so grotesque, that he eventually sought a living as a freak. After an unhappy continental tour, he was given asylum in The London Hospital at the instigation of Mr Frederick Treves, and stayed there until he died. Books, a play and a film have featured his unique story, but each presented it with varying degrees of artistic license. However, contemporary accounts of his condition survive. Both bony abnormalities and substantial soft tissue masses contributed to his deformity. Features of these considered separately suggest neurofibromatosis as a diagnosis, but because the presentation is more extreme than seen in any other recorded patient, other diagnoses have been entertained. In the following three papers, the evidence which supports this diagnosis is reviewed, together with a consideration of the disease affecting his left hip and the manner of his death. This first article reviews the Elephant Man's life story.

Specialisation and Specialist Training in Dentistry in the UK have been central issues for debate in the last few years. The profession has emerged stronger in understanding the respective roles of the generalist who should remain free to practise across the whole spectrum of dentistry and the specialist who can work in primary and secondary care. The overriding principle is that the patient remains the true beneficiary of a specialised service within the NHS.

'What is history?' was the challenge issued by Gibbon, the great historian of the Roman Empire. 'Little more', he observed, 'than a register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of men'. In this lecture I will attempt to redress this inequality and demonstrate that the 'crimes, follies and misfortunes' of women also have a place in history and, at the same time, uncover the 'fair face of dentistry'. I intend to paint a wide canvas, and to relate events and achievements to the sociological changes of contemporary society.

It will not have escaped the notice of most readers of the British Dental Journal that the study 'Better Opportunities for Women Dentists' is currently taking place. Starting in June, a letter requesting information on certain topics was sent to all major professional organisations, including the BDA. Subsequently, a series of focus groups, some including both men and women, were held around England to explore in more depth part-time working, flexible training, and careers advice to name just three issues covered.

Objective To examine the factors that influence editors of scientific dental journals in deciding whether or not to publish submitted manuscripts and to determine if there is a consistent pattern for their decisions. Design The study was by a postal questionnaire. Setting The questionnaires were sent to editors of 50 major English language scientific dental journals in September 1996. Materials and Methods Respondents were asked to rank a number of frequently stated criteria for success in the production of papers. The editors were asked to suggest other factors which 'influenced their decision to accept or reject a manuscript'. Additionally they were asked to suggest factors that 'gave them most heartache', 'would make their life easier' and 'would expedite publication'. Information was sought on editorial policy regarding the use of referees. Results Forty two editors responded (84%). 6 replies were from journals regarded as 'generalist', and excluded from the final analysis. Factors which most frequently led to rejection included 'poor construction of the paper' (cited by 49% of respondents) and 'poor research design' (37%). Factors which editors valued highly were 'scientific novelty and timeliness of the topic' (29%). Factors that caused most problems were 'poor use of English and careless preparation of the manuscript' (46%). 'Attention to guide lines to authors' was cited by 68% of editors as a means of expediting publication. Conclusions The application of these results can help authors to prepare manuscripts that are more attractive to editors of dental journals. Editors valued papers that were appropriate to the stated aims of their journal and regarded the significance and validity of the research work as the most important aspects of manuscripts submitted for publication.

A name or a title may be seen by some people as conveying status, while for others it provides assurance of recognition. To be meaningful it should indicate that the holder has relevant education and training for the task in hand. For too long there has remained in the profession the 'Them and Us' philosophy of yesteryear, although there has been the growing realisation that all members of the dental team carry out their role in a complementary and thoroughly professional manner. Thus it seems entirely appropriate that the designated name should now reflect this and so we should all welcome the change to Professionals Complementary to Dentistry (PCDs) from dental auxiliaries, who, according to the English dictionary, are 'mercenaries or subordinate members', terms hardly conducive to efficient team working!