September 2007 ■ Journal of Dental Education 1217 Western Australian Dental Graduates’ Perception of Preparedness to Practice: A Five-Year Follow-Up Gina Arena, B.A. (Hons), M.A., Ph.D.; Estie Kruger, B.Ch.D., M.Ch.D.; David Holley, B.A. (Hons), M.A., Ph.D.; Estie Kruger, B.Ch.D., M.Ch.D.; David Holley, Estie Kruger, B.Ch.D., M.Ch.D.; David Holley, David Holley, David Holley, B.Hlth.Sc.; Samantha Millar, B.B.Sc. (Hons); Marc Tennant, B.D.Sc., Ph.D. Abstract: The School of Dentistry in Western Australia developed a pregraduation intern year in which final-year students, having completed their didactic education, undertook a focused clinical experiential program (CEP) over an extended year. This program was implemented for the first time in 2002. The aim of this study was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum as perceived by graduates and to compare the perceptions of those graduates who did the CEP to those who did not. A survey with questions based on the graduate outcomes of the dental school was mailed to all graduates from 2000, 2001 (did not complete CEP), and 2004 (completed CEP). The response rate was 66 percent (n=57) and included twenty-nine respondents who graduated before implementation of the CEP and twenty-eight who completed the CEP. Most respondents (80 percent) were in the twenty to twenty-nine age group, and there were slightly more males (53 percent). Learning outcome items with the highest mean scores were practicing universal precautions (4.2), behaving ethically (4.2), and demonstrating a satisfactory level of core dental knowledge (4.2). Practical skills outcomes with the highest scores were amalgam restorations (4.3), anterior endodontics (4.3), and single crowns (3.9). When comparing the respondents who did CEP (51 percent) with those who did not (49 percent), there were few significant differences. The general findings from this survey were that most graduates, whether completing the CEP or not, perceived themselves to be prepared, competent, and confident to practice as dentists and were most confident in managing problems that they most frequently encountered during training. Dr. Arena is Lecturer in Medical Education, Education Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, and Health Sciences; Dr. Kruger is Research Fellow, Centre for Rural and Remote Oral Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, and Health Sciences; Mr. Holley is Research Assistant, Centre for Rural and Remote Oral Health; Ms. Millar is Administrative Officer (Curriculum), School of Dentistry; Dr. Tennant is Professor and Director, Centre for Rural and Remote Oral Health—all at the University of Wes- tern Australia. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Estie Kruger, Centre for Rural and Remote Oral Health, Estie Kruger, Centre for Rural and Remote Oral Health, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, 6009, Australia; 61-8-9346-7248 phone; 61-8-9346-7237 fax; ekruger@crroh.uwa.edu.au. Key words: dental education, perceptions, Australia Submitted for publication 12/11/06; accepted 5/18/07 A s in other nations, there has been a significant evolution in dental education in Australia over the last five to ten years. 1 The challenge for dental schools worldwide has been to design and implement clinical curriculum models in which pa- tient-centered, comprehensive care is the norm, but, at the same time, ensure that each student has an ap- propriate mix of patient care experiences that are part of general practice. 2 During the mid-1990s, the School of Dentistry in Western Australia was an early change agent. These changes were focused on capital and staff renewal, but also included a significant redevelopment of the core curriculum underpinning its educational activities. One of the key changes was the develop- ment and implementation of the pregraduation intern year, first implemented in 2002, in which final-year students, having completed their didactic education, undertook a focused clinical experiential program (CEP) over an extended year (the fifth year of training). This year is in many ways similar to the Advanced Education in General Dentistry training model in the United States, 3 although it is a pregraduation year. The traditional dental school curriculum in Australia has been five years, with the first year consisting of basic sciences. Without this basic sci- ences year, the whole curriculum was adapted to accommodate the fifth (CEP) year. The academic year length of three of the first four years was also increased to ensure that appropriate levels of didactic teaching have occurred before the fifth (CEP) year. The CEP program was developed to provide highly active clinical participation. In summary, it runs over some forty weeks, and students are rostered to vari- ous clinical settings for terms within the year. Each rostered term provides a different experience, from community-based practice through hospital-based practice and some private practice experience. The opportunity to undertake some specialist options within the year-long program is also provided for students.