Quality measures for dental care: A systematic review

Objectives: This systematic review aimed to (a) provide an overview of existing quality measures in the field of oral health care, and to (b) evaluate the scientific soundness and applicability of these quality measures. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via OVID) and LILACS (via BIREME). The search was restricted to articles published between 2002 and 2018. Publications reporting on the development process or clinimetric properties of oral health care quality measures for outpatient oral health care in dental practices were included. The identified publications reporting on oral health care quality measures were critically appraised with the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation 2.0 (AIRE 2.0) instrument to evaluate the soundness and applicability of the measures. Results: The search strategy resulted in 2541 unique and potentially relevant articles. In total, 24 publications were included yielding 215 quality measures. The critical appraisal showed a large variation in the quality of the included publications (AIRE scores ranging from 38 to 78 out of 80 possible points). The majority of measures (n = 71) referred to treatment and preventive services. Comparably, few measures referred to the domain patient safety (n = 3). The development process of measures often exhibited a lack of involvement of patients and dental professionals. Few projects reported on the validity (n = 2) and reliability (n = 3) of the measures. Four projects piloted the measures for implementation in practice. Conclusions: This systematic review provides an overview of the status quo with respect to existing quality measures in oral health care. Potential opportunities include the piloting and testing of quality measures and the establishment of suitable information systems that allow the provision of transparent routine feedback on the quality of oral health care

Oral health promotion: the economic benefits to the NHS of increased use of sugarfree gum in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of sugarfree gum (SFG) on the prevention of dental caries has been established for some time. With increased constraints placed on healthcare budgets, the importance of economic considerations in decision-making about oral health interventions has increased. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the potential cost savings in dental care associated with increased levels of SFG usage. METHODS: The analysis examined the amount of money which would hypothetically be saved if the UK 12-year-old population chewed more SFG. The number of sticks chewed per year and the caries risk reduction were modelled to create a dose response curve. The costs of tooth restoration, tooth extraction in primary care settings and under general anaesthetic were considered, and the effects of caries reduction on these costs calculated. RESULTS: If all members of the UK 12-year-old population chewed SFG frequently (twice a day), the potential cost savings for the cohort over the course of one year were estimated to range from £1.2 to £3.3 million and if they chewed three times a day, £8.2 million could be saved each year. Sensitivity analyses of the key parameters demonstrated that cost savings would still be likely to be observed even in scenarios with less significant increases in SFG use. CONCLUSION: This study shows that if levels of SFG usage in the teenage population in the UK could be increased, substantial cost savings might be achieved

Outcomes in randomised controlled trials in prevention and management of carious lesions:a systematic review

Abstract Background Inconsistent outcome reporting is one significant hurdle to combining results from trials into systematic reviews. Core outcome sets (COS) can reduce this barrier. The aim of this review was to map outcomes reported in caries prevention and management randomised controlled trials (RCT) as a first step to COS development. We also investigated RCT characteristics and reporting of primary outcomes and sample size calculations. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane CENTRAL were systematically searched (1 January 1968 to 25 August 2015). Inclusion criteria: RCTs comparing any technique for prevention or management of caries with another or placebo and RCTs comparing interventions to support patients undergoing treatment of caries (without setting, dentition or age restrictions). Categories were developed through piloting and group consensus and outcomes grouped accordingly. Results Of 4773 search results, 764 were potentially relevant, full text was available for 731 papers and 605 publications met the inclusion criteria and were included. For all outcomes across the time periods 1968–1980 and 2001–2010, reporting of outcome ‘caries experience’ reduced from 39% to 18%; ‘clinical performance of the restoration’ reporting increased from 33% to 42% although there was a reduction to 22% in 2011–2015. Emerging outcome domains include ‘lesion activity’ and ‘pulp health-related outcomes’, accounting for 1% and 0%, respectively, during 1968–1980 and 10% and 4% for 2011–2015. Reporting ‘resource efficiency’ and ‘quality of life measures’ have remained at a low level. No publications reported tooth survival independent of an index such as DMFT or equivalent. Primary outcomes were only identified as such in 414 (68%) of the reports. Conclusions Over the past 50 years, outcome reporting for trials on prevention and management of carious lesions have tended to focus on outcomes measuring caries experience and restoration material clinical performance with lesion activity and cost-effectiveness increasingly being reported. Patient-reported and patient-focused outcomes are becoming more common (although as secondary outcomes) but remain low in use. The challenge with developing a COS will be balancing commonly previously reported outcomes against those more relevant for the future. Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42015025310 . Registered on 14 August 2015, Trials (Schwendicke et al., Trials 16:397, 2015) and COMET initiative online (COMET, 2017)

Developing a Standard Set of Patient-centred Outcomes for Adult Oral Health - An International, Cross-disciplinary Consensus.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a minimum Adult Oral Health Standard Set (AOHSS) for use in clinical practice, research, advocacy and population health. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international oral health working group (OHWG) was established, of patient advocates, researchers, clinicians and public health experts to develop an AOHSS. PubMed was searched for oral health clinical and patient-reported measures and case-mix variables related to caries and periodontal disease. The selected patient-reported outcome measures focused on general oral health, and oral health-related quality of life tools. A consensus was reached via Delphi with parallel consultation of subject matter content experts. Finally, comments and input were elicited from oral health stakeholders globally, including patients/consumers. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1,453 results. After inclusion/exclusion criteria, 959 abstracts generated potential outcomes and case-mix variables. Delphi rounds resulted in a consensus-based selection of 80 individual items capturing 31 outcome and case-mix concepts. Global reviews generated 347 responses from 87 countries, and the patient/consumer validation survey elicited 129 responses. This AOHSS includes 25 items directed towards patients (including demographics, the impact of their oral health on oral function, a record of pain and oral hygiene practices, and financial implications of care) and items for clinicians to complete, including medical history, a record of caries and periodontal disease activity, and types of dental treatment delivered. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, utilising a robust methodology, a standardised core set of oral health outcome measures for adults, with a particular emphasis on caries and periodontal disease, was developed