Criteria for Specialist Registration
Monday, October 22, 2001
The Australian Dental Association (ADA) response to the invitation to comment on the document “Criteria for Specialist Registration”.
22 October, 2001
Dr Anthony J Dickinson
Chairman, Specialist Practitioners Advisory Committee
Dental Practice Board of Victoria
14th Floor, 114 Albert Road
SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205
Dear Dr Dickinson
Thank you for your letter of 18 September last in which you invited comment on the document “Criteria for Specialist Registration”. You indicate that this document might well provide a set of criteria to be recommended to the Board for the registration of specialists.
The Australian Dental Association (ADA) would like to draw your attention to a resource document that may provide useful guidance to the Board in this matter. I refer to the FDI World Dental Federation document on specialisation and the current ADA Resource Document on specialist practice, copies of which are enclosed.
Furthermore, the ADA believes that it is extremely important that there is material consistency throughout Australia regarding specialist classifications and the criteria for registration as a specialist. The Dental Practice Board of Victoria is encouraged to work with the Australian Dental Council (ADC) and the other State and Territory Boards to achieve this.
With respect to the document “Criteria for Specialist Registration”, the ADA would like to make several brief comments:
• in the third paragraph of the document, it is stated that the recommendations are based on the current situation rather than on the ideal. We acknowledge that this approach is a pragmatic and sensible one. However, there needs to be some indication of a transition period before higher standards are enforced. It is considered that to leave this as “They can easily be altered in the future ....” is inexact and does not provide sufficient guidance.
• there is no mention in the “Criteria for Specialist Registration” of a requirement to limit practice to that specialist discipline. This may well be a result of legislative or regulatory changes in Victoria, where some might see such a restriction as anti-competitive. However, if this does not apply, the maintenance of specialist skills could be prejudiced as the application to this discipline is diluted. Furthermore, if this restriction is not imposed, the community would be in no position to determine whether a particular treatment rendered by a specialist was related to the speciality and, therefore, was performed using a higher level of knowledge and skill.
• the accreditation of postgraduate courses by the ADC is considered to be most important in achieving consistent high standards. The Board’s Specialist Practitioners Advisory Committee indicates that this accreditation is not rigorous enough in the discipline of prosthodontics and prefers the accreditation of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Prosthodontists. The ADA believes it would be better to address this perceived deficiency with the ADC and the Dental Practice Board of Victoria would be well-place to initiate this. The proposal that this shortcoming should be addressed by choosing another “referee” would appear to be a short sighted approach to the matter.
• the document refers in several places to the “Diploma of Fellowship” of the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons. There is no such qualification and this inaccuracy in title must be corrected as it detracts from the credibility of the document.
• as presented, the document is not easy to read as it skips frequently between generalisations, details and summaries. It requires some tidying up and re-ordering of subject matter.
It is hoped that these comments and the enclosed document might be of use to the Board in its deliberations. Thank you for inviting us to comment.
Yours sincerely
Robert J F Butler
Executive Director