A cluster randomised controlled trial in primary dental care based intervention to improve professional performance on routine oral examinations and the management of asymptomatic impacted third molars: study protocol

BACKGROUND: Routine oral examination (ROE) refers to periodic monitoring of the general and oral health status of patients. In most developed Western countries a decreasing prevalence of oral diseases underpins the need for a more individualised approach in assigning individualised recall intervals for regular attendees instead of systematic fixed intervals. From a quality-of-care perspective, the effectiveness of the widespread prophylactic removal of mandibular impacted asymptomatic third molars (MIM) in adolescents and adults is also questionable. Data on the effectiveness of appropriate interventions to tackle such problems, and for promoting continuing professional development in oral health care are rare. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a cluster randomised controlled trial with groups of GDPs as the unit of randomisation. The aim is to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of small group quality improvement on professional decision-making of general dental practitioners (GDPs) in daily practice. Six peer groups ('IQual-groups') shall be randomised either to the intervention arm I or arm II. Groups of GDPs allocated to either of these arms act as each other's control group. An IQual peer group consists of eight to ten GDPs who meet in monthly structured sessions scheduled for discussion on practice-related topics. GDPs in both trial arms receive recently developed evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on ROE or MIM. The implementation strategy consists of one interactive IQual group meeting of two to three hours. In addition, both groups of GDPs receive feedback on personal and group characteristics, and are invited to make use of web-based patient risk vignettes for further individual training on risk assessment policy. Reminders (flow charts) will be sent by mail several weeks after the meeting. The main outcome measure for the ROE intervention arm is the use and appropriateness of individualised risk assessment in assigning recall intervals, and for the MIM-intervention group the use and appropriateness of individualised mandibular impacted third molar risk management. Both groups act as each other's control. Pre-intervention data will be collected in study months one through three. Post-intervention data collection will be performed after nine months

Routine oral examination: differences in characteristics of Dutch general dental practitioners related to type of recall interval.

Contains fulltext : 48541.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore differences in behaviour (characteristics and opinions) among general dental practitioners (GDPs), using either a fixed (Fx) or an individualized recall interval (Iv) between successive routine oral examinations (ROEs). METHODS: In the year 2000, data were collected by means of a written questionnaire sent to a random stratified sample of 610 dentists of whom 521 responded, of which 508 (83%) were used for analysis. RESULTS: Two groups of GDPs were distinguished based on their answer to the question: 'Do you apply for all patients a fixed recall interval between two successive ROEs?' Fifty-one per cent of the GDPs (n=257) applied Fxs for all patients, generally for a period of 6 months. Ivs were applied by 49% (n=251) of GDPs, depending on the determination of specific patient characteristics. Logistic regression analysis showed that GDPs applying Fxs also used fixed periods between successive bitewing radiographs for all patients. Furthermore, dentists applying Ivs required more time to conduct an ROE, partly because of a more extensive periodontal screening. GDPs applying Fxs, adhered more to the opinion that a fixed recall regime (every 6 months, as existed before 1995) should be re-introduced, whereas the GDPs in support of Ivs were more in favour to support the opinion that the ROE is 'an excellent instrument for effective, individualized oral care'. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch GDPs differ in the way they deal with the determination of recall interval frequency. These are also specific differences in performance and opinions regarding ROE. With the changing prevalence of oral diseases and the skewed distribution within populations, further research is advocated on consistent decision making to determine the most appropriate recall policy in preventing oral disease