Management of patients at risk of adrenal crisis in the dental setting: a review of current practice in UK dental teaching hospitals.

Introduction Patients with impaired corticosteroid response due to Addison's disease or systemic glucocorticoid use are at risk of adrenal crisis when undergoing dental treatment. There is a lack of conclusive evidence to support dental teams in identifying patients at risk and their management to prevent an adrenal crisis.Aim To review the current practice in UK dental teaching hospitals regarding the management of patients at risk of adrenal crisis in the dental setting.Methods An electronic survey focused on patients who may be at risk of adrenal crisis due to systemic glucocorticoid therapy was sent to all 18 UK dental teaching hospitals. Information on the use of a policy or guidance was requested. Responses were evaluated for clinical decision-making, patient risk assessment and steroid cover dosing regimens.Results A 78% response rate was achieved. Only 29% of institutions had a written policy or guidance document. Variation exists in the threshold of steroid dose and duration of treatment in identifying patients at risk of adrenal suppression. Furthermore, the dose regime for steroid cover varied.Conclusion Further evidence on the management of patients at risk of adrenal crisis is required to inform national guidance and reduce variation in patient management.

Improving participation and engagement with a COVID-19 surveillance programme in an outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: On 3 August 2020, Public Health Scotland commenced a prospective surveillance study to monitor the prevalence of COVID-19 among asymptomatic outpatients attending dental clinics across 14 health boards in Scotland. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this quality improvement project was to increase the number of COVID-19 tests carried out in one of the participating sites, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School. The secondary aim was to identify barriers to patient participation and staff engagement when implementing a public health initiative in an outpatient setting. METHOD: A quality improvement working group met weekly to discuss hospital findings, identify drivers and change ideas. Details on reasons for patient non-participation were recorded and questionnaires on project barriers were distributed to staff. In response to findings, rapid interventions were implemented to fast-track increases in the numbers of tests being carried out. RESULTS: Over 16 weeks, 972 tests were carried out by Glasgow Dental Hospital and School Secondary Care Services. The number of tests per week increased from 19 (week 1) to 129 (week 16). This compares to a similar 'control' site, where the number of tests carried out remained unchanged; 38 (week 1) to 36 (week 16). The most frequent reason given for non-participation was fear that the swab would hurt. For staff, lack of time and forgetting to ask patients were identified as the most significant barriers. CONCLUSION: Public health surveillance programmes can be integrated rapidly into outpatient settings. This project has shown that a quality improvement approach can be successful in integrating such programmes. The key interventions used were staff engagement initiatives and front-line data collection. Implementation barriers were also identified using staff questionnaires.