An evaluation of the implementation of quality improvement (QI) in primary care dentistry: a multi-method approach.

OBJECTIVES: Ensuring that healthcare is patient-centred, safe and harm free is the cornerstone of the NHS. The Scottish Patient Safety Programme (SPSP) is a national initiative to support the provision of safe, high-quality care. SPSP promotes a coordinated approach to quality improvement (QI) in primary care by providing evidence-based methods, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series Collaborative methodology. These methods are relatively untested within dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact to inform the development and implementation of improvement collaboratives as a means for QI in primary care dentistry. DESIGN: A multimethod study underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Kirkpatrick model. Quantitative data were collected using baseline and follow-up questionnaires, designed to explore beliefs and behaviours towards improving quality in practice. Qualitative data were gathered using interviews with dental team members and practice-based case studies. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven dental team members completed the baseline questionnaire. Follow-up questionnaires were returned by 79 team members. Twelve practices, including two case studies, participated in evaluation interviews. Findings identified positive beliefs and increased knowledge and skills towards QI, as well as increased confidence about using QI methodologies in practice. Barriers included time, poor patient and team engagement, communication and leadership. Facilitators included team working, clear roles, strong leadership, training, peer support and visible benefits. Participants' knowledge and skills were identified as an area for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate increased knowledge, skills and confidence in relation to QI methodology and highlight areas for improvement. This is an example of partnership working between the Scottish Government and NHSScotland towards a shared ambition to provide safe care to every patient. More work is required to evaluate the sustainability and transferability of improvement collaboratives as a means for QI in dentistry and wider primary care.

More patient-centred measures required to evaluate hypodontia care outcomes and drive health service improvements.

Data sourcesPubMed, Medline via Ovid (1946 onward), EMBASE via Ovid (1947 onward), Scopus, Web of Science (Scientific Citation Index, Conference Indexes), dissertations and theses databases; Cochrane Collaboration (DARE, CDSR), NICE, SIGN, ClinicalTrials.gov; grey literature searching.Study selectionSix electronic databases were searched for terms related to hypodontia and treatment methods, and four further electronic databases searched using terms for hypodontia only. Mixed-method study designs were used with exclusion of case reports, case series with fewer than ten participants and nonsystematic reviews. Quality improvement reports were also included and managed separately. No language restrictions were used.Data extraction and synthesisData from each study were systematically extracted using a data extraction form modified from the Cochrane Public Health Group template. One reviewer completed data extraction, with a second reviewer checking for accuracy and consistency. Four outcome categories were developed to synthesise the studies using a novel categorisation approach based on the perspective of the study's evaluator; including three subjective outcomes (patient-reported, clinician-reported and lay-reported) and one objective outcome (clinical indicators). No synthesis of efficacy data was planned; therefore, a methodologic quality appraisal of studies was not undertaken.ResultsThe search identified 497 abstracts, from which 106 eligible articles were retrieved in full. Fifty-six studies and eight quality-improvement reports were included. Clinical indicators were reported in 49 studies (88%) including appearance, function, dental health, treatment longevity, treatment success and service delivery. Patient-reported outcomes were given in 22 studies (39%) including oral health-related quality of life, appearance, function, symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction and patient experience. Clinician-reported and lay-reported outcomes were limited to appearance. Variability was seen in the tools used for measuring outcomes.ConclusionsThere is a lack of rationale and consistency in the selection of outcome measures used to evaluate hypodontia care. Outcomes are largely clinician and researcher-driven with little evidence of their relevance to patients. Evidence from hypodontia research is clinician-focused and likely to have limited value to support patients during decision-making. There is a need for a core-outcomes set with a patient-centric approach to drive improvements in health services.

The use of chlorhexidine in the prevention of alveolar osteitis after third molar extractions.

Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline through PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, ISI Web of Science, Evidence-Based Dentistry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the Spanish General University Board database of doctoral theses in Spain (TESEO), the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) bibliographic databases, and the Spanish Medical Index (IME).Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) (with or without placebo) of patients of any age or gender who underwent maxillary or mandibular third molar extractions. Studies were required to have analysed the efficacy of only chlorhexidine in any concentration, formulation or treatment regimen for preventing alveolar osteitis (AO). There was no language restriction.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was carried out independently by two researchers, and a third researcher was consulted in case of disagreements. When explicit data were not stated in the text, they were calculated using data from the tables where possible. In addition, authors were contacted to obtain any necessary missing information. Datasets were assessed for heterogeneity, and meta-analysis was conducted on homogenous datasets. Publication bias was assessed through funnel plots. The research was conducted and is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.ResultsTwenty-three studies published from 1979 to 2015, corresponding to 18 trials (16 parallel-group and two split-mouth RCTs), that reported on 2,824 third molar extractions (1,458 in experimental group and 1,366 in control group) were included. The overall relative risk (RR) was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62; P<.0001). There was evidence of low heterogeneity (I2 = 9.3%; P = 0.336 by X2 test). The number needed to treat was eight (95% CI, 7-11). There were no differences between chlorhexidine rinse (RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.71) and gel (RR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.60) for the prevention of AO after third molar extractions. Chlorhexidine did not cause more adverse reactions than placebo.ConclusionsThe use of chlorhexidine, in any formulation (rinse or gel), concentration (0.12% or 0.20%), or regimen (before, during and/or after surgery), is efficacious and effective in preventing AO in patients who have undergone third molar extraction. The findings showed that in order to prevent one case of AO, eight patients would have to be treated with chlorhexidine. Chlorhexidine gel was found to be moderately more efficacious than the rinse formulation.

The first permanent molar: spontaneous eruption after a five-year failure.

BACKGROUND: It is rare for a first permanent molar (FPM) to temporarily exhibit clinical features of failure of eruption, followed by regeneration of full eruptive capacity 5 years later. Indeterminate failure of eruption (IFE) is a diagnosis of exclusion where the distinction between primary failure of eruption (PFE) and mechanical failure of eruption (MFE) is unclear, including patients too young to specify. CASE REPORT: An 11-year-old girl attended the orthodontic clinic at Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust regarding an unerupted lower right FPM. Her medical and dental trauma history was unremarkable. She presented with a Class II division 2 malocclusion in the mixed dentition, with all other FPMs fully erupted. CONCLUSION: This report documents that an unerupted FPM in an 11-year-old patient may still have the eruptive potential to become functional within the dentition. The period spent monitoring the FPM's outcome prior to surgical intervention has avoided an operation under general anaesthetic and potentially unnecessary orthodontic treatment, as the tooth subsequently erupted without treatment.