International Consensus on a Dental Antibiotic Stewardship Core Outcome Set.

INTRODUCTION: Antibiotic resistance is a global health crisis. Ensuring responsible, appropriate use (stewardship) is an important for keeping antibiotics working as long as possible. Around 10% of antibiotics across health care are prescribed by oral health care professionals, with high rates of unnecessary use. To maximise the value from research to optimise antibiotic use in dentistry, this study developed international consensus on a core outcome set for dental antibiotic stewardship. METHODS: Candidate outcomes were sourced from a literature review. International participants were recruited via professional bodies, patient organisations, and social media, with at least 30 dentists, academics, and patient contributors in total. Outcomes scored "critical for inclusion" by >70% of the participants (dentists, academics, and patients) after 2 Delphi rounds were included in the core outcome set following a final consensus meeting. The study protocol was registered with the COMET Initiative and published in BMC Trials. RESULTS: A total of 33 participants from 15 countries, including 8 low- and middle-income countries, completed both rounds of the Delphi study. Antibiotic use outcomes (eg, appropriateness of prescribing), adverse or poor outcomes (eg, complications from disease progression), and a patient-reported outcome were included in the final, agreed core set. Outcomes relating to quality, time, and cost were not included. CONCLUSIONS: This core outcome set for dental antibiotic stewardship represents the minimum which future studies of antibiotic stewardship in dentistry should report. By supporting researchers to design and report their studies in a way meaningful to multiple stakeholders and enabling international comparisons, the oral health profession's contribution to global efforts to tackle antibiotic resistance can be further improved.

Outcomes to evaluate care for adults with acute dental pain and infection: a systematic narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify outcomes reported in peer-reviewed literature for evaluating the care of adults with acute dental pain or infection.DesignSystematic narrative review. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Primary research studies published in peer-reviewed literature and reporting care for adults with acute dental pain or infection across healthcare settings. Reports not in English language were excluded. STUDY SELECTION: Seven databases (CINAHL Plus, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched from inception to December 2020. Risk of bias assessment used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for randomised controlled trials and Quality Assessment Tool for Studies of Diverse Design for other study types. OUTCOMES: Narrative synthesis included all outcomes of care for adults with acute dental pain or infection. Excluded were outcomes about pain management to facilitate treatment, prophylaxis of postsurgical pain/infection or traumatic injuries. RESULTS: Searches identified 19 438 records, and 27 studies (dating from 1993 to 2020) were selected for inclusion. Across dental, pharmacy, hospital emergency and rural clinic settings, the studies were undertaken in high-income (n=20) and low/middle-income (n=7) countries. Two clinical outcome categories were identified: signs and symptoms of pain/infection and complications following treatment (including adverse drug reactions and reattendance for the same problem). Patient-reported outcomes included satisfaction with the care. Data collection methods included patient diaries, interviews and in-person reviews. DISCUSSION: A heterogeneous range of study types and qualities were included: one study, published in 1947, was excluded only due to lacking outcome details. Studies from dentistry reported just clinical outcomes; across wider healthcare more outcomes were included. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of clinical and patient-reported outcomes are recommended to evaluate care for adults with acute dental pain or infection. Further research is recommended to develop core outcomes aligned with the international consensus on oral health outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020210183.

Dental antibiotic stewardship: study protocol for developing international consensus on a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is both a global public health and patient safety problem driven by overprescribing of antibiotic and other antimicrobial drugs. To conserve the effectiveness of antibiotics for future generations, antibiotic stewardship approaches to using them only where appropriate and necessary are advocated. Dentistry accounts for about 10% of antibiotic prescriptions across global healthcare, with 80% not in accordance with guidance in some countries. Core outcome sets enable the results of studies to be compared in order to maximise the value which can be derived from them. The aim of this study is to develop an international consensus on a core outcome set for dental antibiotic stewardship. METHODS: Consensus on outcomes which are critical for inclusion in the core outcome set for dental antibiotic stewardship will be sought through two rounds of a Delphi survey (using the DelphiManager online system) followed by a final online consensus meeting. Thirty participants will be recruited to the Delphi Panel from across three stakeholder groups: ten dentists, ten academics and ten adults experienced with dental antibiotics as either a patient or parent/carer of a patient who has been prescribed them. Consensus will be achieved if more than 70% of the panel agree that an outcome is critical, with at least one from each stakeholder group in agreement. A long-list of candidate core outcomes has been developed from previously published studies with additions recommended by the steering group. The steering group will oversee development of the core outcome set and includes people from around the world with experience of dental antibiotics: clinicians, researchers and people with experience of being prescribed dental antibiotics and/or surviving an antibiotic resistant infection. DISCUSSION: To date, few studies of dental antibiotic stewardship have been published. Internationally, dental antibiotic guidelines and patterns of use vary widely, so a core outcome set is particularly important to facilitate meaningful comparisons between studies. This core outcome set will encompass antibiotic prescribing for both therapeutic indications, such as for people with acute infections, and for prophylactic indications, such as the prevention of distant site infections (like infective endocarditis) following dental procedures.

'Advice, not orders'? The evolving legal status of clinical guidelines.

Healthcare professionals are expected to deliver care that is consistent with clinical guidelines. In this article, we show that the English courts are increasingly willing to be persuaded by written guidelines when determining the standard of care in cases of alleged clinical negligence. This reflects a wider shift in the approach taken by courts in a number of common law jurisdictions around the world. However, we argue that written guidelines are still only one element that courts should consider when determining the standard of care. It is possible to deliver perfect care that deviates from professional guidelines and even to deliver negligent care by uncritically following a guideline that is flawed. We further argue that written guidelines are relevant beyond defining the accepted standard of care. This is because the decision to deviate from a guideline suggests the existence of multiple approaches that should be discussed with patients as part of ensuring informed consent. It is therefore likely that written guidelines will become an even more prominent feature of the medicolegal landscape in future years.