eGDC
Close
View Contents

Inspections

15 December, 2022
Eight inspections took place in 2021/22; four of these were related to new programmes and four were risk based. Five of the eight inspections were carried out on-site and the remaining three were conducted remotely. 
 
Below is a breakdown of the number of inspections per discipline:

Inspection Activity 2021-2022 by discipline     
Dentistry (BDS)Dental Hygiene and Therapy (HT)Dental Technology (DT)Clinical Dental Technology (CDT)Dental Nursing (DN)
13211

We plan to return for exam inspections for six out of the eight programmes. 

All reports are published on the Latest Inspections page.

Performance against Individual Standards and Requirements

The inspection activity that was undertaken in 2021/22 has been analysed to identify common strengths and issues. Of the eight inspections conducted, all 21 requirements were scrutinised for seven programmes. One HT programme had strong documentary evidence supporting 11 requirements prior to inspection, therefore the inspection was focused on the remaining 10. 

The pie chart below demonstrates the number of Requirements that were considered to be “met” across all three Standards in the 2021-22 period:


This chart provides a breakdown of the Requirements “met”, “partly met” and “not met” in each profession:


Although we conducted fewer inspections in the 2021/22 academic year in comparison to the previous year, the percentage of met requirements increased. More requirements under Standard 1 (protecting patients) were met than Standard 2 (quality evaluation and review) and Standard 3 (student assessment) which is similar to the findings in the previous publications of the Review of Education.

We did not have any concerns relating to patient safety for any of the programmes, and actions were given to providers where requirements were ‘part’ or ‘not’ met. These actions will be followed up on a specified date, documented in the published reports.

The “not met” requirements in relation to DT programmes were in relation to requirements 17 and 18. 

Performance against Standard 1 – Protecting patients (Requirements 1-8)

The chart below shows the percentage of Requirements “met”, “partly met” and “not met” across Standard 1:

The chart below outlines a further breakdown per requirement for Standard 1 in the 2021-2022 academic year:


It is reassuring that Standard 1, which relates to protecting patients, has the most “met” requirements across all of the Standards. The partly met requirements account for 14% of the requirements and are associated with DT and HT programmes only. This is an improvement in comparison to the previous academic year.

Within Standard 1, some Requirements were ‘partly met’. The areas identified for improvement were as follows:

• Conducting placement visits as soon as reasonably possible, to ensure that each centre is complying with awarding organisations’ requirements.
• Developing a raising concerns process that identifies a clear pathway and contact point for raising concerns.

Examples of areas of good practice under Standard 1 included:

University of Birmingham, DHT programme
Requirement 3:
The school clearly described the resilience framework which has been put in place as a result of the pandemic. Students reported that as a result of this they felt safe to attend both the dental hospital and the outreach clinics.
University of Central Lancashire, CDT programme
Requirement 6:
At the inspection, students indicated to us that they were very comfortable with being able to raise concerns as this has been taught within the programme and they have close relationships with the course leads whom they feel they can approach without any repercussions.

Performance against Standard 2 – Quality evaluation and review of the programme (Requirements 9-12)

The chart below shows the percentage of Requirements “met”, “partly met” and “not met” across Standard 2:

The chart below outlines a further breakdown per Requirement for Standard 2 in the 2021-2022 academic year:

 


In comparison to the data in the 2019-21 Review of Education, there have been improvements against this standard. The number of “met” requirements has increased by 13% in relation to the previous academic year, and it is positive that no requirements resulted in a “not met” decision in comparison with 11% “not met” requirements in the previous year. 

Within Standard 2, some Requirements were ‘partly met’. The areas identified for improvement were as follows:

  • Seeking additional or alternative options for gaining unbiased patient feedback
  • Utilising patient feedback to inform teaching and learning or course design
  • Gathering feedback from supervisors which should then feed into programme development

Examples of areas of good practice under Standard 2 included:

University of Highlands and Islands HT
Requirement 9:
The clinical tutors conduct peer reviews of each other’s sessions. The newer members of staff commented that this has proved useful for them. The tutors then have a meeting at the end of every academic year to review what worked well and develop the modules.
University of Central Lancashire, CDT programme
Requirement 12:
The Quality Assurance Framework details how feedback should be collected from staff and students and how this would be fed into the Continuous Course Enhancement process, resulting in any developments to the programme. At the inspection, students confirmed that they can offer feedback on any changes to the programme, for example, changes were made to the approach to coursework in the study of oral disease with two exams being introduced and the coursework element being scaled back.

Performance against Standard 3 – Student assessment (Requirements 13-21)

The chart below shows the percentage of Requirements “met”, “partly met” and “not met” across Standard 3:

The chart below outlines a further breakdown per Requirement for Standard 3 in the 2021-2022 academic year:


The level of requirements being met in Standard 3, relating to clinical experience and assessment, provided assurance that student experience was being suitably monitored, recorded and assessed across the programmes inspected. 

In comparison to the previous academic year, the “met” requirements increased by 6% and the “partly met” requirements decreased by 6%. The percentage of “not met” requirements remained the same in total but were in relation to different individual requirements from the previous year. 

Within Standard 3, some requirements were ‘partly met’. The areas identified for improvement were as follows:

  • Obtaining patient feedback and utilising that for student assessments
  • Utilising plagiarism software for students to submit written work
  • Considering using peer feedback to develop student performance
  • Evidence decisions made during the standard setting process
  • Implementing a proactive approach to securing clinical placements for student cohorts.
In this academic year, only DT programmes received “not met” decisions. There was one “not met” requirement for each of the DT providers inspected.
The areas identified by our inspectors for action were as follows:

  • Reviewing how the programme team and mentors review portfolios, to ensure students receive feedback in a timely fashion
  • Providing evidence of how feedback for individual student performance is used to inform the assessment process. 

Examples of areas of good practice under Standard 3 included:

University of Birmingham HT
Requirement 15:
During the inspection, the panel was pleased to be informed of an enhanced opportunity for students to gain paediatric experience.
University of Central Lancashire, CDT programme
Requirement 14:
We were also introduced to the “Leopard system” which is the system used to continuously monitor the progression of students’ clinical and laboratory activity. This monitoring ensures that they have undertaken each activity relating to patient care and laboratory experience on sufficient occasions to enable them to develop the skills and the level of competency required. Leopard demonstrates the volume and quality of both clinical and technical activity each student undertakes and their achievement.

Previous
Next
Previous
Next
Back to the start
close

Review of Education 2021-2022