Peer review of teaching (PRT) is well established and valued within higher education. Increasingly, dental educators involved in undergraduate or postgraduate teaching are required to undertake PRT as part of their teaching development. Despite this, there is a paucity of literature relating to PRT within dental education, and none that considers the implementation of PRT within large dental teaching establishments. This article describes in detail a staged process for the planning and implementation of PRT within a UK dental school. It uses relevant educational literature to supplement the authors' experiences and recommendations. By highlighting aspects of the process which are key to successful implementation, it is a useful guide for all dental educator teams who wish to successfully introduce, restructure or refresh a PRT scheme.

Aim The aim of this study was to investigate the utilisation of peer review of teaching (PRT) within UK dental schools.Method A structured questionnaire was emailed to all sixteen UK dental schools seeking information on existing PRT schemes, level of staff engagement, and the success of schemes in relation to extent of operation and perceived benefit.Results A 100% response rate was achieved. Fourteen schools (88%) operate PRT schemes. For most, the expected frequency of staff engagement is annually, although there was a wide range between schools (minimum = once every five years, maximum = three times per year). Nine schools (64%) consider their schemes to be fully operational. Twelve schools (86%) feel their staff are either mostly or fully engaged. Reasons for sub-optimal operation and/or engagement include: newly introduced schemes, problems with compliance for off-campus staff, and loss of momentum. Thirteen schools (93%) consider that PRT benefits their teaching staff. Ten schools (71%) stated that changes are required to their schemes.Conclusion PRT is operating within the majority of U.K dental schools but the format and success of schemes varies. Schemes will benefit from ongoing development but changes should take into account evidence from the literature, particularly recognised models of PRT.