Assessing the Patient Safety Culture in Dentistry.

OBJECTIVES: Medical errors are among the leading causes of death within the United States. Studies have shown that patients can be harmed while receiving care, sometimes resulting in permanent injury or, in extreme cases, death. To reduce the risk of patient safety incidents, it is imperative that a robust culture of safety be established. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the patient safety culture among providers at 4 US dental institutions, comparing the results with their medical counterparts in 2016. METHODS: This cross-sectional study uses the Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture that was modified for dentistry and administered at 4 US dental institutions during the 2016 calendar year. All dental team members were invited to complete electronic or paper-based versions of the questionnaire. RESULTS: Among 1,615 invited participants, 656 providers responded (rate, 40.6%). Medical institutions outperformed the dental institutions on 9 of the 10 safety culture dimensions, 6 of the 6 overall quality items, and 8 of the 9 patient safety and quality issues. The surveyed dental institutions reported the strongest average percentage positive scores in organizational learning (85%) and teamwork (79%). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the patient safety culture progressed over time. However, there is still heterogeneity within safety culture among academic dental, private (nonacademic), and medical clinics. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: Patient safety is the first dimension of quality improvement. Administering the Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture within dental clinics represents a key measure to understand where improvements can be made with respect to patient care safety.

Finding Dental Harm to Patients through Electronic Health Record-Based Triggers.

BACKGROUND: Patients may be inadvertently harmed while undergoing dental treatments. To improve care, we must first determine the types and frequency of harms that patients experience, but identifying cases of harm is not always straightforward for dental practices. Mining data from electronic health records is a promising means of efficiently detecting possible adverse events (AEs). METHODS: We developed 7 electronic triggers (electronic health record based) to flag patient charts that contain distinct events common to AEs. These electronic charts were then manually reviewed to identify AEs. RESULTS: Of the 1,885 charts reviewed, 16.2% contained an AE. The positive predictive value of the triggers ranged from a high of 0.23 for the 2 best-performing triggers (failed implants and postsurgical complications) to 0.09 for the lowest-performing triggers. The most common types of AEs found were pain (27.5%), hard tissue (14.8%), soft tissue (14.8%), and nerve injuries (13.3%). Most AEs were classified as temporary harm (89.2%). Permanent harm was present in 9.6% of the AEs, and 1.2% required transfer to an emergency room. CONCLUSION: By developing these triggers and a process to identify harm, we can now start measuring AEs, which is the first step to mitigating harm in the future. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: A retrospective review of patients' health records is a useful approach for systematically identifying and measuring harm. Rather than random chart reviews, electronic health record-based dental trigger tools are an effective approach for practices to identify patient harm. Measurement is one of the first steps in improving the safety and quality of care delivered.

Utilization and Validity of the Dental Diagnostic System over Time in Academic and Private Practice.

INTRODUCTION: To fill the void created by insufficient dental terminologies, a multi-institutional workgroup was formed among members of the Consortium for Oral Health Research and Informatics to develop the Dental Diagnostic System (DDS) in 2009. The adoption of dental diagnosis terminologies by providers must be accompanied by rigorous usability and validity assessments to ensure their effectiveness in practice. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to describe the utilization and correct use of the DDS over a 4-y period. METHODS: Electronic health record data were amassed from 2013 to 2016 where diagnostic terms and Current Dental Terminology procedure code pairs were adjudicated by calibrated dentists. With the resultant data, we report on the 4-y utilization and validity of the DDS at 5 dental institutions. Utilization refers to the proportion of instances that diagnoses are documented in a structured format, and validity is defined as the frequency of valid pairs divided by the number of all treatment codes entered. RESULTS: Nearly 10 million procedures ( n = 9,946,975) were documented at the 5 participating institutions between 2013 and 2016. There was a 1.5-fold increase in the number of unique diagnoses documented during the 4-y period. The utilization and validity proportions of the DDS had statistically significant increases from 2013 to 2016 ( P < 0.0001). Academic dental sites were more likely to document diagnoses associated with orthodontic and restorative procedures, while the private dental site was equally likely to document diagnoses associated with all procedures. Overall, the private dental site had significantly higher utilization and validity proportions than the academic dental sites. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate an improvement in utilization and validity of the DDS terminology over time. These findings also yield insight into the factors that influence the usability, adoption, and validity of dental terminologies, raising the need for more focused training of dental students. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: Ensuring that providers use standardized methods for documentation of diagnoses represents a challenge within dentistry. The results of this study can be used by clinicians when evaluating the utility of diagnostic terminologies embedded within the electronic health record.

Strategic Shift to a Diagnostic Model of Care in a Multi-Site Group Dental Practice.

BACKGROUND: Documenting standardized dental diagnostic terms represents an emerging change for how dentistry is practiced. We focused on a mid-sized dental group practice as it shifted to a policy of documenting patients' diagnoses using standardized terms in the electronic health record. METHODS: Kotter's change framework was translated into interview questions posed to the senior leadership in a mid-size dental group practice. In addition, quantitative content analyses were conducted on the written policies and forms before and after the implementation of standardized diagnosis documentation to assess the extent to which the forms and policies reflected the shift. Three reviewers analyzed the data individually and reached consensuses where needed. RESULTS: Kotter's guiding change framework explained the steps taken to 97 percent utilization rate of the Electronic Health Record and Dental Diagnostic Code. Of the 96 documents included in the forms and policy analysis, 31 documents were officially updated but only two added a diagnostic element. CONCLUSION: Change strategies established in the business literature hold utility for dental practices seeking diagnosis-centered care. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: A practice that shifts to a diagnosis-driven care philosophy would be best served by ensuring that the change process follows a leadership framework that is calibrated to the organization's culture.