Search

This paper makes recommendations for the improvement of assessment in postgraduate dental education. The recommendations are based on a twelve-month study conducted in 1998/99 which evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of the existing assessment systems. Evidence was taken from examination syllabi, assessments and records. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from national bodies and with trainers and trainees in the West Midlands. Strengths in parts of the system include: commitment and professional experience; commissioned work; opportunity to share experience; a monitoring framework; procedures for maintaining standards and examples of broadbased assessments. Weaknesses include: lack of assessment of quality; existence of some forms of unregulated assessment; lack of transparency and lack of clarity between training and assessment. Development is recommended in three broad areas: a competence-based model of assessment; distinguishing assessment from the analysis of educational needs and quality assurance. The introduction of a competence-based model is the most significant and is addressed in some detail. Specific proposals for consideration by national regulatory bodies and education providers include: strengthening the management of assessment; national leadership in the development of a competence model of assessment; widening the assessment base; clearer criteria for inspection; revisions to how vocational training, HO/SHO training and general professional training are assessed and training for trainers.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how the role of peer review and clinical audit may be used in the identification of the continuing professional development (CPD) needs of general dental practitioners (GDPs). Clinical audit and peer review are intrinsically valuable in terms of the continued professional development of GDPs. Collaborative clinical audit, in particular, can provide a framework for short course input and there are particular benefits to this combination of activities which might usefully be more widely encouraged. If open to analysis in a way which retains individual anonymity, peer review and clinical audit resumes, these could be used to inform the provision of CPD and, linked to the knowledge of audit facilitators, short courses might more closely match the CPD needs of local dentists.

The objective of this paper is to propose an evaluation framework for short courses in continuing education for general dental practitioners (GDPs) (so called, Section 63 courses). Existing monitoring and evaluation procedures in the West Midlands deanery were examined and an improved evaluation framework was then devised, piloted and revised. A 5 phase method was used incorporating the examination of existing practice (Phases 1 and 2), development of a new framework (Phase 3), piloting (Phase 4) and revision of the evaluation framework in the light of the pilot. This approach will be implemented in the West Midlands and may be adapted for national use (Phase 5). It was found that existing monitoring and evaluation was inconsistent in prevalence and scope. Those involved in short courses were in favour of a more consistent and visible evaluation, including some assessment of impact-on-practice and cost-effectiveness. In conclusion, meaningful evaluation needs to include four key processes: data gathering; data analysis; dissemination and, action planning (reviewing provision in the light of the data analysis). Thus, this evaluation framework feeds into a quality development cycle designed to ensure high quality and relevant short course provision for general dental practitioners.