Adoption of dental innovations: The case of a standardized dental diagnostic terminology.

BACKGROUND: Standardized dental diagnostic terminologies (SDDxTs) were introduced decades ago. Their use has been on the rise, accompanying the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). One of the most broadly used terminologies is the Dental Diagnostic System (DDS). Our aim was to assess the adoption of SDDxTs by US dental schools by using the Rogers diffusion of innovations framework, focusing on the DDS. METHODS: The authors electronically surveyed clinic deans in all US dental schools (n = 61) to determine use of an EHR and SDDxT, perceived barriers to adoption of an SDDxT, and the effect of implementing an SDDxT on clinical productivity. RESULTS: The response rate was 57%. Of the 35 responses, 91% reported using an EHR to document patient care, with 84% using axiUm; 41% used the DDS. Fifty-four percent of those who did not use an SDDxT had considered adopting the DDS, but 38% had not, citing barriers such as complexity and compatibility. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of an SDDxT, particularly the DDS, is on the rise. Nevertheless, a large number of institutions are in the Rogers late majority and laggards categories with respect to adoption. Several factors may discourage adoption, including the inability to try out the terminology on a small scale, poor usability within the EHR, the fact that it would be a cultural shift in practice, and a perception of unclear benefits. However, the consolidation of the DDS and American Dental Association terminology efforts stands to encourage adoption. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The successful adoption of dental innovation depends not only on the intrinsic merit of the innovation, as some useful innovations do not achieve widespread traction. As such, it is important for health care providers to understand how to disseminate their ideas in order to ensure traction and widespread adoption.

Measuring up: Implementing a dental quality measure in the electronic health record context.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement requires using quality measures that can be implemented in a valid manner. Using guidelines set forth by the Meaningful Use portion of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, the authors assessed the feasibility and performance of an automated electronic Meaningful Use dental clinical quality measure to determine the percentage of children who received fluoride varnish. METHODS: The authors defined how to implement the automated measure queries in a dental electronic health record. Within records identified through automated query, the authors manually reviewed a subsample to assess the performance of the query. RESULTS: The automated query results revealed that 71.0% of patients had fluoride varnish compared with the manual chart review results that indicated 77.6% of patients had fluoride varnish. The automated quality measure performance results indicated 90.5% sensitivity, 90.8% specificity, 96.9% positive predictive value, and 75.2% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' findings support the feasibility of using automated dental quality measure queries in the context of sufficient structured data. Information noted only in free text rather than in structured data would require using natural language processing approaches to effectively query electronic health records. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: To participate in self-directed quality improvement, dental clinicians must embrace the accountability era. Commitment to quality will require enhanced documentation to support near-term automated calculation of quality measures.

Attitudes toward and beliefs about the use of a dental diagnostic terminology: A survey of dental care providers in a dental practice.

BACKGROUND: Attitudes and views are critical to the adoption of innovation. Although there have been broadening calls for a standardized dental diagnostic terminology, little is known about the views of private practice dental team members regarding the adoption of such a terminology. METHODS: The authors developed a survey by using validated questions identified through literature review. Domain experts' input allowed for further modifications. The authors administered the final survey electronically to 814 team members at a multioffice practice based in the US Pacific Northwest. RESULTS: Response proportion was 92%. The survey had excellent reliability (Cronbach α coefficient = 0.87). Results suggested that participants showed, in general, positive attitudes and beliefs about using a standardized diagnostic terminology in their practices. Additional written comments by participants highlighted the potential for improved communication with use of the terminology. CONCLUSIONS: Dental care providers and staff in 1 multioffice practice showed positive attitudes about the use of a diagnostic terminology; specifically, they believed it would improve communication between the dentist and patient, as well as among providers, while expressing some concerns about whether using standardized dental diagnostic terms helps clinicians to deliver better dental care. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: As the dental profession is advancing toward the use of standardized diagnostic terminology, successful implementation will require that dental team leaders prepare their teams by gauging their attitude about the use of such a terminology.

Recommendations for third molar removal: a practice-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated general dentists' reasons for recommending removal or retention of third molars and whether patients adhered to dentists' recommendations. METHODS: In a 2-year prospective cohort study (2009-2011) in the Pacific Northwest, we followed 801 patients aged 16 to 22 years from 50 general dental practices. Generalized estimating equations logistic regressions related patient and dentist characteristics to dentists' recommendations to remove third molars and to patient adherence. RESULTS: General dentists recommended removal of 1683 third molars from 469 (59%) participants, mainly to prevent future problems (79%) or because a third molar had an unfavorable orientation or was unlikely to erupt (57%). Dentists recommended retention and monitoring of 1244 third molars from 366 (46%) participants, because it was too early to decide (73%), eruption path was favorable (39%), or space for eruption was sufficient (26%). When dentists recommended removal, 55% of participants adhered to this recommendation during follow-up, and the main reason was availability of insurance (88%). CONCLUSIONS: General dentists frequently recommended removal of third molars for reasons not related to symptoms or pathology, but rather to prevent future problems.