ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation
Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
(to accompany the ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards)
OCTOBER 2012
Version 1.2
Australian Dental Council
ABN 70 072 269 900
Level 2, 99 King Street
Melbourne Victoria
Australia
Dental Council
Level 5, 138 The Terrace
PO Box 10-448
Wellington
New Zealand
© Copyright 2012
This work is copyright 2012. Copyright is held
by the Australian Dental Council.
It may be reproduced in whole or in part for
study or training purposes subject to inclusion
of an acknowledgment of the source.
It may not be reproduced for commercial use
or sale. Reproduction for purposes other than
those indicated above requires a licence or
written permission which may be obtained
from:
Australian Dental Council
Level 2, 99 King Street
Melbourne Victoria
Australia
Tel +61 (0)3 9657 1777
www.adc.org.au
CONTENTS
Guidelines
1.
Key Terms.................................................................................................................. 4
2.
Overview .................................................................................................................... 5
2.1
ADC ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2
DC(NZ) ........................................................................................................... 6
2.3
Accreditation ................................................................................................... 6
3.
Accreditation Outcomes ............................................................................................. 7
4.
The Aim of Accreditation ............................................................................................ 8
5.
The Accreditation Process ......................................................................................... 9
5.1
Accreditation of New Programs....................................................................... 9
5.2
Accreditation Reviews....................................................................................10
5.3
Summary of the Accreditation Process ..........................................................11
5.4
A Peer Review Process .................................................................................12
5.5
Preparation by the School ..............................................................................13
5.6
Accreditation Submission ...............................................................................13
5.7
Accreditation Visit and Report ........................................................................12
5.8
Annual Reports ..............................................................................................13
5.9
Changes to Programs ....................................................................................13
5.10
Specific Reports.............................................................................................15
6.
Accreditation Visit Schedule ......................................................................................15
7.
Confidentiality ...........................................................................................................16
8.
Unsatisfactory Progress Procedure ...........................................................................16
9.
Accreditation Fees ....................................................................................................17
Explanatory Notes
10. Explanatory Notes .....................................................................................................18
10.1
Clinical Supervision and Outplacement ..........................................................18
10.2
Curricula – Courses and Topics .....................................................................18
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 3
1 KEY TERMS
Accreditation
Committee
Appointed by the ADC/DC(NZ), this joint committee is responsible
for advising the Councils on accreditation matters, including
standards for the accreditation of education and training programs
leading to registration as a dental practitioner and for assessing
programs using these standards. The Accreditation Committee is
also responsible for the accreditation review of programs and
recommending the membership of Site Evaluation Teams.
Accreditation Standards
Accreditation Standards, developed by the Accreditation Committee
and approved by the Councils and Dental Board of Australia, set out
the criteria against which education and training programs are
assessed for accreditation purposes.
Site Evaluation Teams
Appointed by the respective Councils, on the recommendation of the
Accreditation Committee, to undertake the review and assessment
for accreditation purposes of education and training programs
leading to registration as a dental practitioner.
Accreditation
Submission
Detailed information relating to the Accreditation Standards, based
on a self-analysis and provided by a School to the Site Evaluation
Team to support its application for program accreditation.
Site Evaluation Team
Report
Report of the Site Evaluation Team completed at the conclusion of
the assessment process. This report is presented to the
Accreditation Committee and provides comments, analysis and
recommendations on the accreditation/re-accreditation of the
education and training program.
Assessor
Member of a Site Evaluation Team.
Course
The degree/study program delivered by a School.
Curriculum
The academic units/structure within the course/units of competence.
Dental Practitioner
A person registered by the DBA or the DC(NZ) to practise part or all
of dentistry.
Note; In Australia this means a dentist, dental specialist, dental
hygienist, dental therapist, oral health therapist or dental prosthetist.
In New Zealand this term (and Oral Health Practitioner) means a
dentist, dental specialist, dental hygienist, orthodontic auxiliary,
dental therapist, dental technician or clinical dental technician.
Education Provider
Established educational institution.1
Programs
Courses of education and training delivered by a School leading to
registration as a dental practitioner.
School
Faculty, school, department or discipline within a university or other
education provider that delivers education and training programs
leading to registration as a dental practitioner.
Note: The term School is used throughout this document and the
ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards; however, other terms such
as department or discipline are used by some education providers.
1
Removal of reference to university as an example
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 4
2 OVERVIEW
This document provides guidance to education providers seeking accreditation (or reaccreditation) with the Australian Dental Council [ADC] and/or the Dental Council (New
Zealand) [DC(NZ)] for their dental practitioner education and training programs. It outlines
the elements of the ADC/DC(NZ) accreditation process for Australian and New Zealand
Schools in the form of procedural guidelines and provides Explanatory Notes to support the
various Accreditation Standards against which programs will be assessed.
Schools and other interested parties are invited to contact the ADC or DC(NZ) with any
queries or for any clarification:
Australia
New Zealand
Accreditation Officer
Australian Dental Council
PO Box 13278
Law Courts
Victoria 8010
Australia
Tel: +61(0)3 9657 1777
Fax: +61(0)3 9657 1766
E-mail: accred@adc.org.au
Senior Business Development Advisor
Dental Council (New Zealand)
Level 5
138 The Terrace (PO Box 10-448)
Wellington 6143 New Zealand
Tel: +64(0)4 4994820
Fax: +64(0)4 4991668
E-mail: Suzanne.Bornman@dcnz.org.nz
This document draws on the following resource documents:
 (now superceded) ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Assessment Guidelines (used prior to
01 July 2010)
 ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Guidelines for Accreditation Site Evaluation Team
Assessors
 ADC/DC(NZ) Monitoring Accredited Programs Annual Reports
 Australian Medical Council (AMC). Assessment and Accreditation of Medical
Schools: Standards and Procedures, 2009
 Australian Medical Council. Accreditation Framework
 Professions Australia. Standards for Professional Accreditation Processes (June
2008)
 Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Procedures for the Development of
Accreditation Standards (16 November 2009).
2.1
The Australian Dental Council
The Australian Dental Council [ADC] was formed in 1993. It is a national body concerned
with the standards of education, training and practice of dental practitioners in Australia. A
primary purpose for the establishment of the ADC was to accredit dental education programs
in Australia. The ADC is a member-based organisation whose stakeholders are the education
providers, professional associations and regulatory bodies for the dental and oral health
professions in Australia. The ADC has been appointed under the Health Practitioner
Regulation National Law Act 2009 [‘National Law’] as the external accreditation authority to
undertake the accreditation functions for the Dental Board of Australia [DBA]. The DBA is the
national regulatory board established for dental practitioners under the national registration
and accreditation scheme that has been agreed by all governments across Australia. The
DBA is responsible for approval of accredited programs whose qualifications are then
approved for registration to practise in Australia.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 5
2.2
The Dental Council (New Zealand)
The Dental Council (New Zealand) [DC(NZ)] is the statutory body constituted in New
Zealand under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (HPCAA) with
responsibility for protecting the health and safety of the public by ensuring that all registered
oral health practitioners are competent and fit to practise. Under the HPCAA the DC(NZ) is
charged with prescribing the qualifications for registration in dental scopes of practice and for
that purpose accrediting and monitoring New Zealand education providers and degrees,
courses of study or programs.
2.3
Accreditation
Accreditation is the status granted by the ADC and the DC(NZ) to dental practitioner
education and training programs that meet stated criteria of educational quality expressed as
accreditation standards. The purpose of accreditation is both to assure the quality of
education and training and to promote continuous improvement of quality to respond to
evolving community needs and professional practice.
Accreditation is also the process by which the ADC and DC(NZ) review and assess
education and training programs and their facilities against the approved standards and
recognise the programs as having met the defined accreditation standards.
The accreditation process developed by the ADC and the DC(NZ) involves assessment of
the quality of programs offered by education providers against approved accreditation
standards (criteria). Accreditation of a program signifies that the program offered by the
education provider has been found to meet the standards, and that the program provides
graduating students with the knowledge, skills and professional attributes necessary to be
registered to practise2 in Australia or New Zealand.
For this purpose ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards have been developed by the
Accreditation Committee and endorsed by the Board of Directors of the ADC [ADC Board]
and the Dental Council (New Zealand). Under the provisions of the National Law, in Australia
accreditation standards that are developed under the National Law must also be approved
by the DBA and published on their website in order for them to come into effect.3
The suite of relevant Accreditation Standards includes:
 ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards: Education Programs for Dentists
 ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards: Education Programs for Dental Hygienists
and Dental Therapists
 ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards: Education Programs for Dental Specialists
 ADC Accreditation Standards: Education Programs for Dental Prosthetists
These Standards are published on the ADC website (http://www.adc.org.au) and made
available to the education provider prior to the accreditation process.
The Accreditation Standards are regularly monitored and modified based on experience and
feedback from those involved in the accreditation process, and are periodically reviewed and
updated with wide consultation and appropriate external assistance.
While the ADC and the DC(NZ) retain jurisdictional authority for the accreditation of
programs in their respective countries they have adopted a joint Australasian accreditation
process. The Councils have established a joint ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Committee for
2
3
Removed ‘the profession’
Amended for correctness/consistency
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 6
this purpose. The role of the Accreditation Committee is to advise the ADC and DC(NZ) on
accreditation matters, including standards for the accreditation of education and training
programs leading to registration as a dental practitioner, and to assess programs using
these standards.
The Accreditation Committee is assisted in its review of programs by Site Evaluation Teams,
whose members (‘Assessors’) are recommended by the Committee and appointed by the
respective Councils. The Teams work in accordance with the accreditation standards,
guidelines and explanatory notes agreed by the two Councils. These Teams:
4
 review documentation submitted by the education provider on the curriculum, facilities
and resources that support the curriculum
 consult as appropriate with the education provider
 conduct an on-site visit, meeting with relevant personnel, including students, and visiting
School facilities and associated teaching hospitals/clinics
 consult with relevant stakeholders
 prepare a detailed report.
The draft report is reviewed by the School in relation to its factual accuracy, then finalised by
the Team for consideration by the Accreditation Committee. The Committee scrutinises the
Team’s report (after the School has had the opportunity to comment on the draft report) to
ensure that it is balanced and that the conclusions drawn by the Team are sound. The ADC
Board or DC(NZ), as relevant, makes the final decision on accreditation of the program
based on the report and recommendation by the Accreditation Committee.5
In Australia, the ADC then reports its accreditation decision and forwards a copy of the
accreditation report to the DBA. The DBA has responsibility for the approval of programs
accredited by the ADC as providing a qualification for the purposes of registration in the
following divisions: dentists, dental specialists, dental hygienists, dental therapists, oral
health therapists and dental prosthetists. A graduate of a program that is accredited by the
ADC and approved by the DBA is eligible for registration to practise in their discipline in any
state or territory of Australia.
In New Zealand the DC(NZ) has defined lists of prescribed qualifications for registration as a
dentist, dental specialist, dental hygienist, orthodontic auxiliary, dental therapist, dental
technician or clinical dental technician.
3 ACCREDITATION OUTCOMES
The ADC and the DC(NZ) have adopted the following possible accreditation outcomes
consistent with the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (National Law) in
Australia and the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 in New Zealand.
These apply to all programs – newly accredited and established.
Under the National Law in Australia the ADC may grant accreditation if it is reasonably
satisfied that a program of study and the program provider meet an approved Accreditation
Standard. It may also grant accreditation if it is reasonably satisfied that a program of study
and the program provider substantially meet an approved accreditation standard and the
imposition of conditions will ensure the program meets an approved Accreditation Standard
within a reasonable time.
4
5
Previously ‘program’
This paragraph and the following one for NZ amended to match with current practice
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 7
The period of accreditation (with or without conditions) that will be granted is up to a
maximum of 7 years for dentist programs; 5 years for dental specialist programs and 5 years
for hygienist, therapist, oral health therapist and dental prosthetist programs.
Accreditation
Accreditation indicates that the program achieves or exceeds the minimum
standards for accreditation. Retention of this accreditation status is subject
to monitoring.
Accreditation
Accreditation with Conditions indicates that the program substantially
with Conditions
meets the Accreditation Standards but the program has a deficiency or
weakness in one or more Standards. The deficiency or weakness is
considered to be of such a nature that it can be corrected within a
reasonable period of time.
Evidence of progress towards meeting the conditions within the timeline
stipulated must be demonstrated in order to maintain accreditation of the
program.
Revocation
of Accreditation can be revoked when:
Accreditation
- a program which has accreditation with conditions fails to
demonstrate that progress has been made towards meeting the
conditions within a reasonable period of time, and the program
therefor does not comply with the Accreditation Standards.
- a program is identified, at any time, as having serious deficiencies
or weaknesses and fails to meet one or more Accreditation
Standards. The serious nature of the deficiencies or weaknesses
means that accreditation must be revoked.
The ADC/DC(NZ) will advise the program provider of the reasons for its
decision to revoke accreditation of the program and require the provider to
advise the ADC/DC(NZ) of the management of currently enrolled students.
Refusal
of Accreditation can be refused if a new program or a program undergoing
Accreditation
reaccreditation has a serious deficiency or weakness in one or more
Accreditation Standards that cannot be corrected within a reasonable
period of time. The ADC/DC(NZ) will advise the program provider of the
reasons for its decision to refuse accreditation of the program.
4 THE AIM OF ACCREDITATION
In undertaking the accreditation function the Accreditation Committee acknowledges the
diversity of teaching and learning approaches of the various Schools within the continuum of
dental education, recognising that this diversity can strengthen the Australian and New
Zealand education system, provided that each School continually evaluates its own
methods.
The Accreditation Committee uses a ‘fitness for purpose’ model as the basis for the
accreditation process. This means that the Site Evaluation Teams focus on the stated aims
and objectives of the education provider and the School objectives in relation to the relevant
ADC Attributes and Competencies document. In this sense Site Evaluation Teams are not
comparing programs against a pre-conceived “gold standard” but rather considering each
program on its own merits and against the approved accreditation standards. Teams are
interested in finding out how well the School’s existing or proposed activities match their
stated aims and objectives and the relevant accreditation standard.
The ADC and DC(NZ) believe that curricula must emphasise not only technical competence
but also the social responsibilities of dentists and other members of the dental team in
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 8
educating the public about the importance of oral health and its relationship to general health
and in empowering individuals to assume responsibility for their own oral health.
The programs should extend beyond explicit content-based learning objectives and also
include opportunities for developing social responsibility and for personal growth. The areas
of content, social responsibility and student development should be integral to the program
and a continuous part of student activity within clinical practice. They should also permeate
the whole of the curriculum and be included in the assessment process.
As indicated earlier (see section 2.3 above), the ADC has developed statements on the
professional attributes and competencies for newly graduated dentists, dental hygienists,
dental therapists and oral health therapists. Whilst these statements do not prescribe the
curriculum of an education and training program, nor are they intended to be read as a set of
learning objectives, it is expected that education providers seeking to have their programs
accredited by the ADC will use the statements to assist them in the self assessment stage of
the accreditation process and to assess a program’s effectiveness.
5 THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS
It is strongly recommended that education providers contact the ADC/DC(NZ) at the earliest
point in time to consult regarding accreditation requirements and in order for the
accreditation process to proceed in as timely and efficient manner as is possible.
5.1
Accreditation of New Programs
Accreditation for new programs6 that are planned for introduction, whether in a new School
or within an existing School, requires the following before commencement of the program.


Notice of intention from the education provider/School to the ADC/DC(NZ) and DBA
as appropriate (at least 24 months in advance of intended commencement of
program).
For Australian programs, referral of proposal/notice of intention from the DBA to the
ADC for consideration in relation to the accreditation process (the ADC cannot
proceed without this referral).
The requirements where major changes are proposed to an existing program are similar and
are set out below (section 5.9).
Education providers making public announcements regarding proposed new programs (such
as in promotional literature or course information on websites) should consult with the
ADC/DC(NZ) regarding any reference to the ADC/DC(NZ) and the accreditation process.
New programs are assessed against the same standards (criteria) as established programs.
Proposals for accreditation of new programs7 will follow a two-stage assessment process.
Stage 1 Assessment
The education provider provides an initial (Stage 1) submission to the Accreditation
Committee outlining its plans and providing written assurance(s) from the relevant
authorities, well before the new program is to be introduced.
6
7
Previously dental and oral health programs
Previously dental and oral health programs
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 9
This initial submission is normally required at least 24 months in advance of the intended
commencement of the program. The ADC/DC(NZ) will not proceed to Stage 2 of the
assessment process, viz assessment of the curriculum plans, without written assurances
that the program can and will be implemented.
The Accreditation Committee will then undertake a Stage 1 assessment that will consider an
overview of the program plans and its curriculum and the resources available to support all
years of the proposed program.
The purpose of this Stage 1 assessment is to determine whether the education provider’s
plans are sufficiently well developed to proceed with the accreditation process and to
establish whether the planned curriculum is likely to comply with the ADC/DC(NZ)
Accreditation Standards. As such, the Stage 1 submission is a preliminary version of the
Stage 2 submission. Where details have not yet been developed, an indication of how
further development will be undertaken is appropriate.
The Accreditation Committee may recommend either:
(i) that the planned curriculum is likely to comply with the ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation
Standards and that the education provider has demonstrated that the new program
can and will be implemented. The Accreditation Committee will recommend that the
School be invited to submit more detailed plans for consideration, or
(ii) that further development is required before the ADC/DC(NZ) can consider the
curriculum in detail.
Stage 2 Assessment
In its Stage 2 submission, the School is required to present details of the full program and of
the financial, physical and staff resources available to design and implement all years of the
program, and to support the program when fully established. The assessment of the
program will require an accreditation review and in most cases an on-site accreditation
visit(s). The School’s Stage 2 documentation must be submitted well in advance of student
selection and of the program commencement to allow the School to respond to any
requirements of the ADC/DC(NZ) (and the DBA as appropriate).
Although the ADC/DC(NZ) will proceed as expeditiously as possible with the accreditation
process, accreditation of a new program usually takes some time from initial notification,
through to Stage 1 assessment and then Stage 2 documentation submission and
assessment, including site visit and final report. The ADC must also be mindful of the
timeline for the DBA to consider the ADC accreditation decisions and accreditation reports
for approval of the qualification for registration purposes. Schools are strongly advised to
make initial contact with the ADC/DC(NZ) at least two years prior to the intended program
commencement.
5.2
Accreditation Reviews
The ADC and DC(NZ) will contact programs in advance with advice about forthcoming
accreditation reviews and key dates, and to negotiate mutually acceptable timing and
arrangements.
5.3
Summary of the Accreditation Process
Key steps in the accreditation process are summarised in the following table (see above re
new programs):
ADC or DC(NZ) contacts programs with advice about forthcoming accreditation
reviews and closing dates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 10
ADC or DC(NZ) liaises with School about date(s) for accreditation visit.

ADC or DC(NZ) consults the School and selects Site Evaluation Team, finalises
accreditation protocol and funding arrangements.

Accreditation Submission provided by the School, in hard copy and electronic
format, at an agreed time before the accreditation visit (normally 3 months before
the Site Evaluation Team visit).

Site Evaluation Team plus ADC/DC(NZ) Secretariat staff member meet 1-2 months
before the visit (usually by teleconference) to review Accreditation Submission and
outline of the program for the accreditation visit. Team members are allocated
specific responsibilities according to their expertise and interests. Schools are
contacted for any additional information required.

Site Evaluation Team visit commences. The Team interviews relevant groups and
individuals in the School and the education provider and inspects the facilities. The
Chair concludes the visit with a discussion of the Team’s preliminary findings with
the Dean/Head of School.

Site Evaluation Team produces a draft report for comment by the relevant
Coordinator and Chair, Accreditation Committee (usually within 4 weeks of
accreditation visit).

Team draft report sent to the School for correction of any errors of fact (usually
within 8 weeks of accreditation visit).

Preparation of final report by Team and ADC/DC(NZ) Secretariat within 3 months of
accreditation visit.

The Accreditation Committee considers the final report and makes a
recommendation to the ADC Board/DC(NZ), as relevant, on the accreditation status
of the program/s. The ADC Board or DC(NZ) considers the recommendations and
resolves the details of the accreditation decision.

The relevant Council notifies the education provider/School. The ADC also notifies
the DBA.

ADC/DC(NZ) monitors the accredited program. The School provides annual reports
and details of changes made (and other reports at intervals as required by any
condition of accreditation).
It is intended that the accreditation review process will be conducted in a positive,
constructive and collegial manner, with the best interests of the community’s oral health, and
the protection of the public, foremost in mind. The intention is to make the process, as much
as possible, a self-assessment process by the Schools themselves, enabling the strengths
and weaknesses of programs to be identified.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 11
The ADC/DC(NZ) accreditation process undergoes regular evaluation and modification
based on previous experience, written feedback from participants, including Assessors and
Schools, and periodic formal review with appropriate external assistance.
5.4
A Peer Review Process
The accreditation process is intended to be a continuing, collegiate, interactive and
constructive peer review process.
The effectiveness of peer review depends upon a number of factors:
 value sharing: a strong common understanding of the standards and criteria against
which the review is conducted
 adequate levels of commitment by the organisation being reviewed, and by the
Assessors
 mutual trust: to facilitate the disclosure of data, information and documentation which are
essential to the process; a large degree of trust and shared values among the
participants should be present from the beginning
 credibility: there is a strong link between the credibility of the process and its capacity to
influence. The approach of the Assessors is intended to be objective, fair and consistent,
with reviews conducted against explicit, clear standards.
Whilst peer review underlies the accreditation process for all programs being reviewed by
the ADC/DC(NZ), the relevant Standards for the accreditation of dental specialty programs
include a specific peer evaluation requirement for each dental specialty program being
reviewed ( undertaken by the relevant specialist academy/society).8
5.5
Preparation by the School
The accreditation review is not limited to the Site Evaluation Team’s visit and meetings. The
process starts within the School with a process of self-assessment and analysis, the
documentation of policies and practices, and the development of an accreditation
submission.
5.6
Accreditation Submission
The School begins preparing its accreditation submission well before the accreditation visit.
The relevant ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards are provided to the School prior to the
review as the basis for development of the accreditation submission.
Normally, the completed accreditation submission is required three months before the actual
review visit.
The accreditation submission is the basis on which the review proceeds: it describes the
School’s policies, processes and programs. It also contains the School’s own assessment of
its strengths and the actions necessary to address its weaknesses and future challenges.
5.7
Accreditation Visit and Report
The Site Evaluation Team’s preliminary assessments of the appropriateness and
effectiveness of the School’s processes and programs are based on the School’s
accreditation submission. The Team uses the accreditation submission to decide how to
structure the site visit and meetings.
8
In this regard the ADC/DC(NZ) is currently involved in reviewing the peer evaluation requirements in relation to accreditation
of dental specialty programs
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 12
The accreditation submission also forms the framework of the Team’s report. The aim is for
Schools to feel that they have some ownership of the process, both in terms of collating the
information and also in relation to the final report.
The Report follows the structure of the relevant ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards and
includes the Team’s comments and observations on the School’s submission and arising
from the accreditation visit. The Team summarises its views and assessment and makes
appropriate suggestions and recommendations arising from their assessment of all aspects
of the program.
The School is invited to comment on the factual accuracy of the draft Team Report, which is
then finalised for presentation to the Accreditation Committee. The Committee reviews the
Team Report and forwards it with its accreditation recommendation to the DC(NZ) and the
ADC Board for the accreditation decision to be made.
In Australia, the ADC Board’s decision and the accreditation report are then transmitted to
the DBA for approval of the accredited program as providing a qualification for the purposes
of registration to practise as a dentist, dental specialist, dental hygienist, dental therapist,
oral health therapist or dental prosthetist.
5.8
Annual Reports
As part of the monitoring aspect of the accreditation process, the ADC and DC(NZ) require
an Annual Report from each School for each accredited program. Details of any significant
changes, planned or unplanned, must be specified in the Annual Report. It is the
responsibility of Schools to notify the ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Committee in their Annual
Reports of any planned significant changes of programs before they are implemented. It is
expected that relevant recommendations and suggestions made at previous accreditation
visits will also be addressed and documented in the Annual Report. The ADC/DC(NZ)
provide a reporting template for this purpose.
The information provided in the Annual Report is an important part of the accreditation
process and allows for review of programs by the Schools as well as monitoring by the
ADC/DC(NZ) of the quality of dental practitioner education and training and of compliance
with any conditions on accreditation.
Programs with conditions on their accreditation may have specific reporting requirements in
addition to annual reports (see section 5.10 below).
For more information on Annual Report requirements and the required standardised
reporting format, see ADC/DC(NZ) Monitoring Accredited Programs: Annual Reports.
5.9
Changes to Programs
Major changes to an education and training program that is accredited by the ADC or the
DC(NZ) may affect the accreditation status of the program and will require a series of
procedures to be instituted (as outlined below).
The ADC/DC(NZ) may regard the following as major changes that might affect the
accreditation status of an accredited dental practitioner education and training program:
 A change in the length (months/years) of the program

A change in the format (delivery style) of the program

An amendment to an existing course to provide for off-campus education

A significant change in educational philosophy (pedagogy) or educational emphasis of a
program or in institutional setting
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 13

A substantial change in learning objectives in one or more subjects in a year or in
subjects across years of the program

The introduction of a new area of study

A significant change in patient group/scope of practice.

Discontinuation of a course or part-of a course

A change in the number of units/time required to complete components of the program

Changes to admission and enrolment processes, including arrangements for ongoing
monitoring of processes

A substantial change in student numbers relative to resources9

A change in the nature of funding

Significant changes forced by a major change in resources10 leading to an inability to
achieve the objectives of the existing program.
The ADC/DC(NZ) does not consider the gradual evolution of a program in response to local
initiatives and ongoing review to be a major change.
The ADC/DC(NZ) expects to be informed prospectively of such developments, desirably 18
months in advance of their intended introduction.
The Annual Reports required of accredited programs provide one avenue for advice on
program changes, however if the change is major (as defined above), the ADC/DC(NZ) must
be advised as soon as possible11 via the relevant ADC/DC(NZ) Secretariat, so that a
process of review can be initiated well in advance of commencement of the proposed
changes.
The ADC/DC(NZ) Secretariat is available to provide general advice as to whether the
proposed changes are likely to impact on the program’s accreditation status under
ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards.
The assessment of the impact of any changes will be undertaken with reference to the
ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards in force at the time of the changes.
The process of review of a major change involves the following steps:

Notice of intent/Annual Report received from School

Assessment by a Site Evaluation Team, to determine:
(1) If the change is major but can be approved for introduction within the current
accreditation of the program and does not require a full accreditation review. In this
case the School will be required to submit a broad outline of the new program,
transitional arrangements for existing students if appropriate, the resources
including clinical teaching resources available to deliver the training program, and
evidence of engagement of stakeholders.
(2) If the change is of comprehensive impact that requires accreditation review of the
whole program
9
10
Including capital, facilities, staff etc
See above
11
Desirably at least 18 months in advance of the intended introduction of the major change(s)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 14
(3) If the change is not major and can be considered within the current status and
period of accreditation.

Consideration by the ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Committee of the Site Evaluation
Team’s recommendation(s)

Visit to the program (as required)

Consideration by the ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Committee of the Site Evaluation
Team’s recommendation(s) following any visit to the program

Decision by the ADC Board/DC(NZ) (as appropriate) following consideration of the
Accreditation Committee report of the Site Evaluation Team’s recommendation(s).
In response to what it views as major changes in programs, the Accreditation Committee
may consider revising any recommendations and/or conditions associated with the existing
accreditation of the program. In these cases, the School will be advised and consulted.
5.10 Specific Reports
Specific reports (apart from Annual Reports) may be required from Schools where programs
are granted a shorter period of accreditation or where there are conditions on accreditation.
Additional reports may also be requested where information available to the ADC or DC(NZ)
indicates that there may be matters of concern in relation to the continued accreditation
status of a program.
6 ACCREDITATION VISIT SCHEDULE
The Site Evaluation Team’s interactions with the School comprise a series of meetings with
selected individual staff and groups and committees that contribute to the delivery of the
program, consumers of the program (eg students and recent graduates), other stakeholders
(eg relevant professional bodies, registration bodies), community/public/private providers
and users of clinical experience, and other important influences on the environment in which
training occurs. These interactions will usually occur over a period of two to three days.
Visits may be longer for multi-campus education providers or for concurrent reviews of
multiple programs offered by a School.
Teams are looking at two key objectives, firstly, to validate standards and, secondly, to
review the academic curriculum through a process that recognises expertise on both sides
and seeks to improve performance by discussion, constructive criticism and
recommendations.
There is a need to maintain, and to be seen to maintain, proper professional perspective
throughout the process in order to deliver objective, unbiased and fair outcomes. Team
members therefore limit their interaction with staff of the School and stakeholders during the
period of the accreditation visit to occasions and purposes that are directly related to the
visit. This also allows adequate time during the course of the visit for Team discussion,
review, writing and planning.
The Team (via the relevant Secretariat for the visit) will advise the School of the groups and
individuals whom it wishes to meet and the range of teaching sites/facilities it wishes to visit.
The School then develops an accreditation visit schedule in consultation with the
ADC/DC(NZ) Secretariat. The accreditation visit schedule should provide opportunities for
interactive discussions with staff and members of the profession and other stakeholders to
present their views to the Team, and for relevant facilities to be viewed by the Site
Evaluation Team.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 15
A sample list of those to be included in a visit schedule is outlined below:
Who
Vice Chancellor (or nominee)
Dean of Faculty and/or Campus
Director
Head/Dean of School
Director/Coordinator of Program/s
Academic staff
Conjoint staff
Dental Clinics
Support staff
Clinical Placement staff
P/T Clinical teaching staff
Administrative/financial staff
Director of Dental/Oral Health
Services
Representatives of relevant
Professional Associations
Students
Recent graduates
Comments
Particularly for new School or new program
If multi-campus program/s
Included at the start of the visit for introduction and
orientation, and at the end when the draft findings are
presented
As relevant for the education provider
Senior academic and clinical teaching staff
associated with the program/s
Where there is teaching across disciplines or
combined classes/subjects
eg Clinic manager, Dental/Oral Health Program
Coordinator for main teaching clinic/s
eg Librarian, IT key staff
Especially where programs have outplacement of
students to remote clinics (ie other than main
teaching clinics)
eg Faculty business manager (as relevant)
State and/or regional level, as relevant
eg ADA, ADPA, NZDA, DHAA, NZDHA, ADOHTA,
NZDTA
Representatives of relevant Student Committee and
students
As relevant
Communications on behalf of the Team occur through the ADC/DC(NZ) Secretariat with the
office of the Dean/Head of School. All requests for information are made by the Secretariat
to the Dean/Head’s office. The accreditation visit schedule is finalised in consultation with
the Dean/Head of School. Any additional meetings are organised by the Dean/Head’s office
at the Team's request.
7 CONFIDENTIALITY
Confidentiality is an integral part of the accreditation process.
In order to discharge its accreditation to a high standard, ADC/DC(NZ) requires a
considerable amount of information from Schools, both in accreditation applications and in
subsequent written submissions, as well as during site visits. This may include information of
a sensitive nature, such as staff plans, budgets, honest appraisal of strengths and
weaknesses, and commercial-in-confidence material. The ADC/DC(NZ) requires Assessors,
Accreditation Committee members, ADC Board members, DC(NZ) Council members and
Secretariat staff to keep as confidential the material provided to the ADC/DC(NZ) by Schools
for the accreditation of their programs and to use such information only for the purpose for
which it was obtained in conjunction with the ADC/DC(NZ) accreditation process.
A final decision on accreditation is made only when the Accreditation Committee and the
ADC Board or DC(NZ) have considered the report prepared by the Site Evaluation Team.
Consequently, the recommendation on accreditation is confidential until the relevant Council
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 16
has made an announcement regarding the status and period of accreditation and any
conditions that may apply to that accreditation.
8 UNSATISFACTORY PROGRESS PROCEDURE
A goal of the accreditation process is to encourage further improvements and developments
in the dental practitioner course being assessed. During an assessment, in addition to
identifying the relevant achievements and strengths of the School and the dental practitioner
course, it is expected that the School and the Accreditation Team will identify areas for
improvement. The Annual Reports and specific reporting process, described in Guidelines
5.8 and 5.10 above, is the mechanism by which Schools inform the ADC/DC(NZ) of their
actions in response to recommendations of the accreditation report and accreditation
conditions.
The procedures described below are separate from this continuous improvement process.
These relate to circumstances where the Accreditation Committee considers, on the basis of
Annual Reports or specific reports or other material available to it, that there may be cause
to consider:
(i) the imposition of new or additional conditions on an existing accreditation; or
(ii) a reduction in the current period of accreditation; or
(iii) the revocation of accreditation.
The Accreditation Committee informs the School of its concerns and the grounds on which
they are based. The School will be given an opportunity to respond to the statement of
concerns.
If required, and on the recommendation of the ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Committee, the
ADC Board or Dental Council (New Zealand), as appropriate, will set up a small team to
investigate the concerns and prepare a report. The ADC will inform the DBA of its concerns
and the grounds on which they are based, and the process to be implemented.
A team comprising the Chair of the Accreditation Committee or nominee, one member of the
original Accreditation Team and the CEO of the ADC or DC(NZ) as appropriate, or nominee,
will normally investigate the concerns. Additional members with specific expertise may be
appointed depending on the conditions set.
The team reports to the Accreditation Committee, which may recommend to the ADC
Board/DC(NZ) that:
(i) the conditions on the accreditation are being met or are likely to be met in the near
future. In this case, the ADC Board/DC(NZ) may affirm the accreditation of the dental
practitioner program for a specified period subject to satisfactory periodic reports.
(ii) the conditions on the accreditation are not being met and are unlikely to be met in the
near future. In this case, in accordance with the options for accreditation outcomes,
the ADC Board/DC(NZ) may:
a. place further conditions on the accreditation. The ADC Board/DC(NZ) could
specify actions to be taken or issues to be addressed by the School and/or
further restrict the period of accreditation. A School with such conditions on
accreditation of its program may apply for re-instatement of its full period of
accreditation at any time subject to the normal procedures for review of
accreditation; or
b. withdraw accreditation from the program, if it considers that the School is unable
to deliver the program at a standard or in a manner compatible with the
Accreditation Standards. In this case, the ADC/DC(NZ) will work with the School
to facilitate arrangements for the enrolled students to complete an accredited
program.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 17
9 ACCREDITATION FEES
For information on accreditation fees contact the ADC/DC(NZ) Secretariat as appropriate.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 18
10 EXPLANATORY NOTES
The following Explanatory Notes have been developed by the ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation
Committee to assist in the interpretation and application of the various Accreditation
Standards.
10.1 Clinical Supervision and Outplacement
The ADC/DC(NZ) welcomes the development of outplacement/outreach arrangements for
clinical teaching in dental practitioner education and training programs (from hereon the term
outplacement will be used). A number and range of outplacement clinic arrangements have
been introduced by Schools in Australia and New Zealand. The following list of
recommended characteristics of outplacement arrangements are intended to assist Schools
in providing quality experiences for students in outplacement arrangements.

Clearly defined learning outcomes/teaching objectives

Formal relationships/agreements between the education provider responsible for
dental education and the agency engaged in the provision of teaching and
supervision of students in the outplacement clinics/settings

Appropriate educational, clinical and social facilities as well as suitable travel and
accommodation arrangements to support this component of the students’ experience

Site specific student orientation processes

An appropriate number of available clinical chairs

Appropriate IT and audio-visual equipment and relevant support staff

Clear supervision arrangements with defined responsibilities for the practitioners who
contribute to the delivery of the outplacement program and the responsibilities of the
School to these practitioners

The School facilitates the training of outplacement supervisors, and evaluates their
effectiveness

Opportunities for all staff involved in outplacement teaching to become fully
integrated into the educational development, philosophy and practice of the School

An appropriate case mix complementing the clinical experience in other parts of the
program

Clear student assessment procedures and School processes to support supervisors
in their assessment role and to assist them in their professional development in this
role

Well developed quality assurance procedures.

A robust financial plan based on sound costings.
10.2 Curricula – Courses and Topics
See Standard 8 of the ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards: Education Programs for
Dentists, ADC/DC(NZ) Accreditation Standards: Education Programs for Dental Hygienists
and Dental Therapists and ADC Accreditation Standards: Education Programs for Dental
Prosthetists. See also the ADC statements of the professional attributes and competencies
(below) for the range of personal qualities, cognitive abilities and applied skills expected of
the new graduate:
 Professional attributes and competencies of the newly qualified dentist
 Professional attributes and competencies of the newly qualified dental hygienist
 Professional attributes and competencies of the newly qualified dental therapist
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 19

Professional attributes and competencies of the newly qualified oral health therapist
At this stage the ADC has not defined the professional attributes and competencies of the
newly qualified dental prosthetist. The Community Services and Health Industry Skills
Council (Skills Council) Health Training Package provides the necessary information to
indicate Courses/topics that might be expected to be included in an education program for
dental prosthetists.
Courses/topics12 that might be expected to be included in an education program for
dentists are:
 Anatomy – gross, microscopic, neuro-anatomy
 Behavioural sciences, including communication
 Bicultural issues
 Biochemistry
 Biology, including oral biology
 Biostatistics
 Chemistry
 Community dentistry
 Community medicine
 Materials science
 Dental materials
 Dental occlusion
 Emergency procedures, CPR
 Endodontics
 Epidemiology
 Ethics and jurisprudence
 Forensic odontology
 General dental practice, utilisation of assistants
 General histology
 General immunology
 General medicine
 General microbiology
 General pathology
 General physiology
 General surgery
 Genetics, including molecular genetics
 Imaging, including radiology
 Infection control
 Molecular biology
 Nutrition
 Operative dentistry
 Oral anatomy
12
Recognising that Schools may use different terminology to describe these subjects
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 20




















Oral biology
Oral diagnosis
Oral histology and embryology
Oral medicine
Oral microbiology and immunology
Oral pathology
Oral physiology
Oral surgery
Orthodontics
Paediatric dentistry
Pain control
Periodontology
Pharmacology and therapeutics
Physics
Practice management, occupational health hazards
Preventive dentistry
Prosthodontics, fixed and removable, including implants.
Research methodology, computer skills, and critical appraisal of the literature
Responsibilities in vocational practice (team dentistry, safe practice, occupational
health and safety, legislation governing practice).
Special needs dentistry, including gerodontology, medically compromised, disabled
Courses/topics13 that might be expected to be included in an education program in
dental hygiene/dental therapy are:
 Anatomy – gross and microscopic; oral anatomy
 Behavioural sciences, including communication; models of learning, human
development and behaviour change, social and cultural effects
 Bicultural issues, eg Mana Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi, and Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Health issues
 Dental diseases
 Dental materials
 Dental occlusion
 Dental radiography
 Emergency procedures, CPR
 Ethics and jurisprudence
 General histology
 General microbiology, immunology and oral pathology
 General pathology
 General physiology
 Infection control
13
Recognising that Schools may use different terminology to describe these subjects
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 21















Diet and oral health
Operative dentistry
Oral biology (histology, embryology, microbiology and physiology)
Oral diagnosis
Oral health promotion
Introductory orthodontics
Paediatric dentistry
Pain control
Periodontology
Pharmacology
Preventive dentistry
Public health policy
Research methodology, computer skills, and critical appraisal of the literature
Special needs dentistry, including gerodontology, medically compromised, disabled
Responsibilities in vocational practice (team dentistry, safe practice, occupational
health and safety, legislation governing practice).
10.3 Clinical experiences for Dental Students
See Standard 10 of the ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Standards: Education Programs for
Dentists.
A guide to the clinical experiences undertaken by dental students is as follows:
 Completed examinations and treatment plans
 Preventive management
□ dietary analysis and counselling
□ oral hygiene instruction
□ fluoride application
 Operative
□ fissure sealants
□ composite restorations, GICs
□ amalgam restorations
□ complex restorations (crowns, veneers etc)
 Endodontics
□ number of single-rooted and multi-rooted teeth
 Oral surgery
□ simple extractions
□ other
 Orthodontics
□ treatment plans
□ removable appliances
 Paediatric dentistry
□ patients treated
□ pulp therapy
□ amalgams
□ composites
□ space maintenance
 Periodontics
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 22
□ patients treated
□ scaling
□ other



Prosthodontics
□ removable dentures
□ complete dentures
□ immediate dentures
□ relines and repairs
Fixed prosthodontics
□ bridges
Radiology
□ intra-oral radiographs
□ panoral radiographs
Approved:
ADC 8 April 2011
DC(NZ) 21 March 2011
Effective Date:
October 2012
Version Control:
v1.1
_________________________________________________________________________________________
ADC/DCNZ Accreditation Guidelines and Explanatory Notes
Version 1.1, October 2012
Page 23