COVID-19 Pandemic: The Urgent Dental Hub experience from a primary care perspective.

In response to the nationwide lockdown on 23 March 2020 in the UK, urgent dental hubs (UDHs) were established in the community to provide emergency dental care.Consecutive referrals to a primary care UDH were prospectively analysed over a one-month period, from 18 May 2020 to 18 June 2020.Of 400 referrals received, the most common were in relation to pain (87%). In 63% neither a radiograph nor photograph was provided with the referral. Seventy percent of patients were telephone triaged within 24 hours of receipt of referral. Fifty-three percent of referrals were accepted for face-to-face treatment, of which 69% were treated by extraction. Of rejected referrals (n=179; 45%), 79% were due to symptoms having settled or being manageable by the time of triage. A small number of referrals were redirected for specialist care. Referrals that were accepted were more likely to have been prescribed antibiotics and less likely to have been referred by the general dental practitioner (GDP) they regularly saw (p <0.01).Patients that were older and those that identified themselves as not having a regular GDP were less likely to have been referred to an UDH. The quality of referrals was poor and there may be a role for virtual consultations moving forwards. We found pre-referral antimicrobial prescriptions were high and a confused public health message may have been sent.

An Analysis of Electronic Primary Dental Practice Tooth Wear Referrals.

We evaluated the quality of general dental practitioner (GDP) tooth wear (TW) referrals to secondary care services in Kent, Surrey and Sussex.Prospective consecutive referrals received via an electronic pathway were assessed from 1 June to 30 October 2019. Reasons for referral, patient demographics, quality of referral, opinion of the triaging clinician and outcome were assessed.Of 671 referrals, 32% were for TW. Males were referred more commonly (1.7:1.0). The median age was 52. Patients were more likely to be referred from distant locations than places closer to the referral centre (p<0.001). Only 55% of referrals suggested a cause for the TW, 33% provided a clinical photograph and 1% recorded a tooth wear index of any type. Referring clinicians most commonly cited attrition as reason for referral (p<0.001). Those under 40 years were referred for erosion (p=0.001) and those over 40 years, attrition (p=0.019). The triaging clinician was more likely to allocate a tooth wear score of three for those under 40 years and a score of four for over 40 years (p<0.001). 47% of referrals were rejected. Males and referrals with photographs were more likely to be accepted for treatment (p=0.017 and p<0.001, respectively).There is a high demand for specialist TW services. The number of referrals being rejected has not changed using the electronic referral system. We advocate the inclusion of mandatory fields for completion by GDPs as well as compulsory clinical photographs and tooth wear indices (Smith and Knight Tooth Wear Index or a basic erosive wear examination - BEWE index).