ABSTRACT
There is increasing importance placed on conducting clinical trials in dentistry to provide a robust evidence base for the treatment provided, and models of care delivered. However, providing the evidence upon which to base such decisions is not straightforward, as the conduct of these trials is complex. Currently, only limited information is available about the strategies to deliver successful clinical trials in primary care settings, and even less available on dental clinical trials. Considerable knowledge and experience is lost once a trial is completed as details about effective management of a trial are generally not reported or disseminated to trial managers and researchers. This leads to loss of vital knowledge that could assist with the effective delivery of new trials. The aim of this study is to examine the conduct and delivery of five dental clinical trials across both Australia and the UK and identify the various factors that impacted upon their implementation. Findings suggest that early stakeholder engagement, and well-designed and managed trials, lead to improved outcomes for researchers, clinic staff and patients, and increases the potential for future dissemination and translation of information into practice.
Subject(s)
Dental Care , Dental Research/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Australia , Dental Care/methods , Dental Care/organization & administration , Dental Instruments , Dental Research/organization & administration , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic/methods , Patient Selection , Primary Health Care/methods , Resource Allocation , ScotlandABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of decontamination procedures in general practice. DESIGN: Anonymous postal questionnaire survey of 600 general practitioners randomly selected from the national register. SETTING: General practices throughout the United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: 382 General practitioners, a response rate of 65%. RESULTS: 186 General practitioners had autoclaves but 125 used hot water disinfectors or chemical disinfectants to reprocess instruments. 22% (474/2132) Of high risk instruments were inadequately decontaminated. Decontamination was performed by the practice nurse or receptionist in 306 practices. Knowledge of treatment of spillages of blood fluids was uncertain, and only 114 general practitioners used effective methods for dealing with spillages. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive central code of practice for control of infection is needed for primary health care staff.
