Premium
External Examiners and Immediate Post Qualification Clinical Dental Training in Europe
Author(s) -
Moody G. H.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
european journal of dental education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.583
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1600-0579
pISSN - 1396-5883
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2004.t01-4-338ab.x
Subject(s) - medicine , oral examination , medical education , family medicine , dentistry , oral health
Background: A conversation at the ADEE Conference in Bern, 2001, revealed an apparent diversity in the use and role of External Examiners in dental undergraduate examinations in ADEE‐associated schools. There also appeared to be considerable variation in the amount of post‐graduate supervised clinical training. Aims: (i) To elicit information on the use of External Examiners in dental undergraduate examinations. (ii) To acquire information about immediate post‐qualifying supervised clinical experience and training. Method: Questionnaire to the 205 Dental Schools listed in the ADEE Directory in 35 European countries. Results: Eighty‐two (40%) completed questionnaires were returned. Of these 82 schools, 43 (52.4%) did not use External Examiners. The remaining 39 (47.6%) used an External Examiner at least once during the under‐graduate course. All 39 used an External Examiner in ‘Finals’, 34 in all clinical examinations and 30 in pre‐clinical examinations. Thirty out of 39 allowed external examiners to scrutinize papers before the examination. Although 31/39 were asked to advise on problems during examinations, only 26/39 were consulted about the fate of ‘failed’ candidates and 23/39 asked to adjudicate in such instances. Following qualification, graduates from 38/82 schools experienced some form of supervised further clinical training ranging from 3 months to 2 years. The majority (21/38) were trained for 1 year and 13 for 2 years. However, 30/82 (36.5%) schools produced graduates who qualified without any external assessment and without the benefit of any post‐qualifying supervised training. Conclusions: Although the questionnaire response rate is low, it is clear that there are disparities in practice with regard to the use of external examiners and post‐graduate training, which need to be evaluated if dental undergraduate standards in Europe are to converge.