It should be 1 per 12 in the ACT of course it’s a bit different in Tasmania. So the ratio is actually out of whack in those two states but if fact it’s much more in the lime ball in all other states where it is almost exactly matched to the ratio of dentist. So if you look around Australia at the moment, few more in Tasmania, few more in South Australia but think about rural and remote. That’s got a very low number. In original has got the highest at 5.9. So the most protesters during the places that are nice to live their large centres but in fact a lot of the dense and the need is actually in the areas that are just outside where the ratio so lower, at the lower end . So this is not jay disiilimialr picture for dentist but there is also a Mel distribution. And i don’t want to bore you too much about distribution by state but i want to talk about the total number of procedures over time. SO the populations in procedures numbers are very similar to the population growth o austral. The ratio has been shifted very much and if you look a tot this slide and you at the ratio you can see it has gone from 4.2 , 4.5 , 4.4, its basically floating around at about 4 and a bit per 100 , 000 population since 1998 . So the real availability to the population is actually not increased and net growth is less than OHTS in density. So it’s the proportion of the dental delivery of services is actually being a reduction as a proportion of a team.
This slide over here on labour force composition actually shows you that. We’ve got over here in 2003 we had about just over to a 1000 prostetus. In 2000 that when up to over 1100 prostetus. It went up by little bit less than under a hundred. If you look at that in terms of net growth oopt j grew by about 5%. Numbers in other categories grew at differential rates. So there was a bit more a of a burst in dental specialist , very big nursery in dental hygienist , there wasn’t enough numbers of OHTS to make the prediction but you can see that there has actually been abet of change in he balance of the health team at the margins because the procedures growth in numbers is ink affect reasonably small.
This will probably best show over here, this is the proportion of team member in 2006, 6 % of the dental team were prostetus. By 2020 based on the current numbers it will drop to about 4 % because the other groups numerically are increasing but iprsotedures numerically are not increasing at the same rate. Population is growing , ,all of dentist is growing , procedures is not growing at the same rate has all of dentistry i guess s is what I’m trying to day here in relatively simple terms . What does that mean for the future workforce it means whether you are going to be a bit short? Basically it that’s the number of it. What’s I’m going to do now ids just very quickly model some of the factors ,There is a whole bunch listed here which you can spend days discussing but just going to model some of the factors i think attire probably most important in that discussion . So I’m going to pull up some of the data from the form you fuelled in when you registered with you regional dental board in 2006. This is the most recent data i can get my grubby little hands on. This has been reported very recently again by AHW in thee different reports. I’m just going to exert what i think of the main line stories for those reports
First thing is that one in seven prostetus are not available for work. Doesnt mean that they are at home having a sick. It means they are not working they are retired, they not working as a prostetus even those they are registered as a prostetus. I believe if you add up those things up hats 14.8%. That’s one in seven avaikebele for work. Let’s not think about those who are actually in the labour force, the guys in these green box, we’ve got a 1080 in 2006. We are now down to 944. Let’s take those 944 how many of them are actually currently working in delta prosthetics. Now it’s down to 921 because of few other reasons as you can see if you sort of follow dose of those boxes down there. Then you think about ok where they are, so if you look at the change in proportions you can see the number who in remote areas has actaully dropped. So there are list in the places that have the most disease is the first point and if you look at their distribution its remaining rough proportional to dentist, this two slides have got roughly the same proportions. Who are they mostly working for? The answer is mostly for themselves. 8.15%. Not in the public sector even though you may be seeing some public sector patients.
If you look at the type of practise here it is for procedures, private practise represent the domain at and this the same for hygienist dental specialist as you would expect. Most of the Australian industry 8- % -85% is private sector delivery as well all know. What about gender? Gender is having a huge impact in dentist. In many dental schools female dental students are the domain at group and that been a trend which is being sort of steadily increasing over a number of years , Into he procedures labour force the female participation has historically been quite small but it is growing That has influences on the hours per work and on the patterns of work and on the career aspirations . If there is a feminisation occurring in denture in Australia at large which i believe there certainly is then we need to have and think about what that means in terms of full time equivalent workers. So 10% of the prostetus in 2006 were women. The percentage have grown from 80 % to just over 10 5% .Now it will be about 11% , maybe 10 % of females on average , do several hours less paper week and hour an average , 6 years younger . They have different patterns of work and interestibhly enough they tend to be more likely to work in the public sector which is weird. There is actually more of the patients who actually need that sort of treatment.
There is quite an interesting alignment which has been happening but much more so in the female part of the prostetus world. Just to show you the proportions in 2011 44% of dentist in Australian were women. It is predicated that by the end of this year or early next year that number will reach 50%. Isn’t that amazing? in period of time from 2000 – 2012 that’s going from , that’s basically doubled in real term . It’s just absolutely remarkable. Look at procedures it’s at the moment siting somewhere between 11 and 16% .It’s very hard to get accurate current data at this but there basically the low and the high trend limits when i did the mathematical modelling . That proportion is going to rise. Now i don’t know whether that is going to continue to rise at the same rate as it has for dentist but in denture it has doubled in ten years. That has an impact on dental workforce.
So let me just make a couple comments about working hours across a few different parts of the county. We’ve already talked about gender a then sort of all wrap it all up in to a couple foo closing comments. If you worked out how long you worked last week you would probably find you working the same number of hours as you were in 2000 because there has actually been no change to working week . However, the prostetus in this middle bend of age 35- 39 are those who are working the most hours per week. Now note the figures for dentist what are put inside the yellow box over here. Dentist work on average 38.4, females work on average 33.5, males 40. 3. Remember i already told you when you feminise a workforce you normally drop 6 or 7 hours pew week on average. That’s what the data show. I; m it being sexist in any way, far from it. Just saying this is actually what the numbers show me. If you think about the drop by age as you’re prostetus workforce ages the older practitioners are lively to work less hours and that’s exactly what you can see here. The average hours worked per week actually drops of.
According to you state if you are in ACT you work the most hours 46.4 in WA you work the least hours. If you work in rural and remote hours you work 47.5 which is more than anyone else in the country and that because you have the most demand. It sort of makes sense doesn’t it? The natural average is 43 hours per week. Just remember that when you go back to work next week and think about he many hours you’re going to work that’s the average and if you understood this is the average distribution by state and i just put in the red box over here the distribution for males versus females. You can see the difference in practising hours for males and females there.
That’s [Inaudible] i won’t bore you with. Interestingly if you ask people why they are not working 43 or 47 hour peer week you get this answer, this is that analysis for those who work part time, less than the 35. About a third of them say it’s because of their personal preference or because of household duties and of course this is the terns that we’ve seen happen in dentistry whereas the work force become feminise you see a life choice and you also see household duties. Note there is about 29 % who said there wants enough work around anyway so things were a bit quiet. Which is interesting given that there is demand, perhaps not in that location.
