Knowledge of ethical lapses and other experiences on clinical licensure examinations

Abstract

While clinical licensure examinations claim to protect the public from incompetent practitioners, serious problems related to issues of validity, reliability, and ethics have been reported. The ethical lapses are difficult to document, and reports of problems have been strictly anecdotal. This study's primary purpose was to verify those anecdotal reports by mailing a twenty-one-item survey to a national random sample of one thousand general dentists who graduated from a United States-accredited dental school between 1980 and 1994. For those who responded (42.9 percent) results show that 23.9 percent did not arrange for follow-up care for the patient even though it was indicated. Eight percent reported knowledge of instances where a lesion was intentionally created; 19.3 percent knew of premature treatment provided for purposes of the examination; 13.7 percent knew of a colleague who coerced a patient into accepting treatment; 32.5 percent reported knowledge of unnecessary radiographs. About half of all respondents agreed that the examination was not an accurate assessment of ability, and a similar proportion doubted that human patients were necessary. A more reliable and valid assessment strategy that does not jeopardize patient care is needed.