Search

A person's right to access his or her protected health information is a core feature of the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. If the information is stored electronically, covered entities must be able to provide patients with some type of machine-readable, electronic copy of their data. The aim of this study was to understand how academic dental institutions execute the Privacy Rule's right of access in the context of electronic health records (EHRs). A validated electronic survey was distributed to the clinical deans of 62 U.S. dental schools during a two-month period in 2014. The response rate to the survey was 53.2% (N=33). However, three surveys were partially completed, and of the 30 completed surveys, the 24 respondents who reported using axiUm as the EHR at their dental school clinic were the ones on which the results were based (38.7% of total schools at the time). Of the responses analyzed, 86% agreed that clinical modules should be considered part of a patient's dental record, and all agreed that student teaching-related modules should not. Great variability existed among these clinical deans as to whether administrative and financial modules should be considered part of a patient record. When patients request their records, close to 50% of responding schools provide the information exclusively on paper. This study found variation among dental schools in their implementation of the Privacy Rule right of access, and although all the respondents had adopted EHRs, a large number return records in paper format.

Although standardized terminologies such as the International Classification of Diseases have been in use in medicine for over a century, efforts in the dental profession to standardize dental diagnostic terms have not achieved widespread acceptance. To address this gap, a standardized dental diagnostic terminology, the EZCodes, was developed in 2009. Fifteen dental education institutions in the United States and Europe have implemented the EZCodes dental diagnostic terminology. This article reports on the utilization and valid entry of the EZCodes at three of the dental schools that have adopted this standardized dental diagnostic terminology. Electronic data on the use of procedure codes with diagnostic terms from the three schools over a period from July 2010 to June 2011 were aggregated. The diagnostic term and procedure code pairs were adjudicated by three calibrated dentists. Analyses were conducted to gain insight into the utilization and valid entry of the EZCodes diagnostic terminology in the one-year period. Error proportions in the entry of diagnostic term (and by diagnostic category) were also computed. In the twelve-month period, 29,965 diagnostic terms and 249,411 procedure codes were entered at the three institutions resulting in a utilization proportion of 12 percent. Caries and periodontics were the most frequently used categories. More than 1,000 of the available 1,321 diagnostic terms were never used. Overall, 60.5 percent of the EZCodes entries were found to be valid. The results demonstrate low utilization of EZCodes in an electronic health record and raise the need for specific training of dental providers on the importance of using dental diagnostic terminology and specifically how to use the terms in the electronic record. These findings will serve to increase the use/correct use of the EZCodes dental diagnostic terminology and ultimately create a reliable platform for undertaking clinical, outcomes, and quality improvement-related research.

Standardized treatment procedure codes and terms are routinely used in dentistry. Utilization of a diagnostic terminology is common in medicine, but there is not a satisfactory or commonly standardized dental diagnostic terminology available at this time. Recent advances in dental informatics have provided an opportunity for inclusion of diagnostic codes and terms as part of treatment planning and documentation in the patient treatment history. This article reports the results of the use of a diagnostic coding system in a large dental school’s predoctoral clinical practice. A list of diagnostic codes and terms, called Z codes, was developed by dental faculty members. The diagnostic codes and terms were implemented into an electronic health record (EHR) for use in a predoctoral dental clinic. The utilization of diagnostic terms was quantified. The validity of Z code entry was evaluated by comparing the diagnostic term entered to the procedure performed, where valid diagnosis-procedure associations were determined by consensus among three calibrated academically based dentists. A total of 115,004 dental procedures were entered into the EHR during the year sampled. Of those, 43,053 were excluded from this analysis because they represent diagnosis or other procedures unrelated to treatments. Among the 71,951 treatment procedures, 27,973 had diagnoses assigned to them with an overall utilization of 38.9 percent. Of the 147 available Z codes, ninety-three were used (63.3 percent). There were 335 unique procedures provided and 2,127 procedure/diagnosis pairs captured in the EHR. Overall, 76.7 percent of the diagnoses entered were valid. We conclude that dental diagnostic terminology can be incorporated within an electronic health record and utilized in an academic clinical environment. Challenges remain in the development of terms and implementation and ease of use that, if resolved, would improve the utilization.