Search

Background Dentists strive to provide safe and effective oral healthcare. However, some patients may encounter an adverse event (AE) defined as "unnecessary harm due to dental treatment." In this research, we propose and evaluate two systems for categorizing the type and severity of AEs encountered at the dental office. Methods Several existing medical AE type and severity classification systems were reviewed and adapted for dentistry. Using data collected in previous work, two initial dental AE type and severity classification systems were developed. Eight independent reviewers performed focused chart reviews, and AEs identified were used to evaluate and modify these newly developed classifications. Results A total of 958 charts were independently reviewed. Among the reviewed charts, 118 prospective AEs were found and 101 (85.6%) were verified as AEs through a consensus process. At the end of the study, a final AE type classification comprising 12 categories, and an AE severity classification comprising 7 categories emerged. Pain and infection were the most common AE types representing 73% of the cases reviewed (56% and 17%, respectively) and 88% were found to cause temporary, moderate to severe harm to the patient. Conclusions Adverse events found during the chart review process were successfully classified using the novel dental AE type and severity classifications. Understanding the type of AEs and their severity are important steps if we are to learn from and prevent patient harm in the dental office.

Background Standardized dental diagnostic terminologies (SDDxTs) were introduced decades ago. Their use has been on the rise, accompanying the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). One of the most broadly used terminologies is the Dental Diagnostic System (DDS). Our aim was to assess the adoption of SDDxTs by US dental schools by using the Rogers diffusion of innovations framework, focusing on the DDS. Methods The authors electronically surveyed clinic deans in all US dental schools (n = 61) to determine use of an EHR and SDDxT, perceived barriers to adoption of an SDDxT, and the effect of implementing an SDDxT on clinical productivity. Results The response rate was 57%. Of the 35 responses, 91% reported using an EHR to document patient care, with 84% using axiUm; 41% used the DDS. Fifty-four percent of those who did not use an SDDxT had considered adopting the DDS, but 38% had not, citing barriers such as complexity and compatibility. Conclusions Adoption of an SDDxT, particularly the DDS, is on the rise. Nevertheless, a large number of institutions are in the Rogers late majority and laggards categories with respect to adoption. Several factors may discourage adoption, including the inability to try out the terminology on a small scale, poor usability within the EHR, the fact that it would be a cultural shift in practice, and a perception of unclear benefits. However, the consolidation of the DDS and American Dental Association terminology efforts stands to encourage adoption. Practical Implications The successful adoption of dental innovation depends not only on the intrinsic merit of the innovation, as some useful innovations do not achieve widespread traction. As such, it is important for health care providers to understand how to disseminate their ideas in order to ensure traction and widespread adoption.

s Background Although complete and accurate clinical records do not guarantee the provision of excellent dental care, they do provide an opportunity to evaluate the quality of care provided. However, a lack of universally accepted documentation standards, incomplete record-keeping practices, and unfriendly electronic health care record (EHR) user interfaces are factors that have allowed for persistent poor dental patient record keeping. Methods Using 2 different methods—a validated survey, and a 2-round Delphi process—involving 2 appropriately different sets of participants, we explored what a dental clinical record should contain and the frequency of update of each clinical entry. Results For both the closed-ended survey questions and the open-ended Delphi process questions, respondents had a significant degree of agreement on the "clinical entry" components of an adequate clinical record. There was, however, variance on how frequently each of those clinical entries should be updated. Summary Dental providers agree that complete and accurate record keeping is essential and that items such as histories, examination findings, diagnosis, radiographs, treatment plans, consents, and clinic notes should be documented. There, however, does not seem to be universal agreement how frequently such items should be recorded. Clinical Implications As the dental profession moves towards prevalent use of electronic health care records, the issue of standardization and interoperability becomes ever more pressing. Settling issues of standardization, including record documentation, must begin with guideline-creating dental professional bodies, who need to clearly define and disseminate what these standards should be and everyday dentists who will ultimately ensure that these standards are met and kept.

In recent years, there has been an increase in research studies highlighting patients' experiences of adverse events (AEs) as well as the role of patients in promoting safety. The primary goal of the study was to assess the prevalence of dental AEs (DAEs) among dental patients in South Africa and its associated factors. The integration of the patient perspective into dental patient safety research will enhance our collective understanding of DAEs.We conducted a cross-sectional study of adult patients at a large dental academic institution in South Africa from May to June 2015, evaluating their previous experiences of DAEs at any dental clinic in South Africa. Descriptive statistics and bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing a DAE.A total of 440 questionnaires were returned during the 6-week study period (response rate = 97.8%). Overall, 45.5% of participants reported experiencing one or more DAEs. Two hundred participants reported a total of 717 DAEs giving us a lifetime prevalence of 1.6 DAEs per respondent. Our results suggest that respondents who were younger (18-24 y), from high-income families (R150,000 or US $9200), dissatisfied with their last dental visit and oral health had an increased likelihood of reporting a previous experience of a DAE.This study provides an insight into the nature of information that can be gleaned from dental patients regarding safety and helps lay the foundation for patient involvement in patient safety reporting.

Background Attitudes and views are critical to the adoption of innovation. Although there have been broadening calls for a standardized dental diagnostic terminology, little is known about the views of private practice dental team members regarding the adoption of such a terminology. Methods The authors developed a survey by using validated questions identified through literature review. Domain experts’ input allowed for further modifications. The authors administered the final survey electronically to 814 team members at a multioffice practice based in the US Pacific Northwest. Results Response proportion was 92%. The survey had excellent reliability (Cronbach α coefficient = 0.87). Results suggested that participants showed, in general, positive attitudes and beliefs about using a standardized diagnostic terminology in their practices. Additional written comments by participants highlighted the potential for improved communication with use of the terminology. Conclusions Dental care providers and staff in 1 multioffice practice showed positive attitudes about the use of a diagnostic terminology; specifically, they believed it would improve communication between the dentist and patient, as well as among providers, while expressing some concerns about whether using standardized dental diagnostic terms helps clinicians to deliver better dental care. Practical Implications As the dental profession is advancing toward the use of standardized diagnostic terminology, successful implementation will require that dental team leaders prepare their teams by gauging their attitude about the use of such a terminology.

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.

Introduction The inability of some seriously and chronically ill individuals to receive a definitive diagnosis represents an unmet medical need. In 2008, the NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program (UDP) was established to provide answers to patients with mysterious conditions that long eluded diagnosis and to advance medical knowledge. Patients admitted to the NIH UDP undergo a five-day hospitalization, facilitating highly collaborative clinical evaluations and a detailed, standardized documentation of the individual's phenotype. Bedside and bench investigations are tightly coupled. Genetic studies include commercially available testing, single nucleotide polymorphism microarray analysis, and family exomic sequencing studies. Selected gene variants are evaluated by collaborators using informatics, in vitro cell studies, and functional assays in model systems (fly, zebrafish, worm, or mouse). Insights from the UDP In seven years, the UDP received 2954 complete applications and evaluated 863 individuals. Nine vignettes (two unpublished) illustrate the relevance of an undiagnosed diseases program to complex and common disorders, the coincidence of multiple rare single gene disorders in individual patients, newly recognized mechanisms of disease, and the application of precision medicine to patient care. Conclusions The UDP provides examples of the benefits expected to accrue with the recent launch of a national Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN). The UDN should accelerate rare disease diagnosis and new disease discovery, enhance the likelihood of diagnosing known diseases in patients with uncommon phenotypes, improve management strategies, and advance medical research.

Objective: Secondary data are a significant resource for in‐depth epidemiologic and public health research. It also allows for effective quality control and clinical outcomes measurement. To illustrate the value of structured diagnostic entry, a use case was developed to quantify adherence to current practice guidelines for managing chronic moderate periodontitis (CMP).Methods: Six dental schools using the same electronic health record (EHR) contribute data to a dental data repository (BigMouth) based on the i2b2 data‐warehousing platform. Participating institutions are able to query across the full repository without being able to back trace specific data to its originating institution. At each of the three sites whose data are included in this analysis, the Dental Diagnostic System (DDS) terminology was used to document diagnoses in the clinics. We ran multiple queries against this multi‐institutional database, and the output was validated by manually reviewing a subset of patient charts.Results: Over the period under study, 1,866 patients were diagnosed with CMP. Of these, 15 percent received only periodontal prophylaxis treatment, 20 percent received only periodontal maintenance treatment, and only 41 percent received periodontal maintenance treatment in combination with other AAP guideline treatments.Conclusions: Our results showed that most patients with CMP were not treated according to the AAP guidelines. On the basis of this use case, we conclude that the availability and habitual use of a structured diagnosis in an EHR allow for the aggregation and secondary analyses of clinical data to support downstream analyses for quality improvement and epidemiological assessments.

Author(s): Kalenderian, E; Maramaldi, P; Kim, S; Etolue, J; McClellan, L; Simmons, K; Yansane, A; White, JM; Walji, MF; Ramoni, RB | Abstract: BackgroundDocumenting standardized dental diagnostic terms represents an emerging change for how dentistry is practiced. We focused on a mid-sized dental group practice as it shifted to a policy of documenting patients' diagnoses using standardized terms in the electronic health record.MethodsKotter's change framework was translated into interview questions posed to the senior leadership in a mid-size dental group practice. In addition, quantitative content analyses were conducted on the written policies and forms before and after the implementation of standardized diagnosis documentation to assess the extent to which the forms and policies reflected the shift. Three reviewers analyzed the data individually and reached consensuses where needed.ResultsKotter's guiding change framework explained the steps taken to 97 percent utilization rate of the Electronic Health Record and Dental Diagnostic Code. Of the 96 documents included in the forms and policy analysis, 31 documents were officially updated but only two added a diagnostic element.ConclusionChange strategies established in the business literature hold utility for dental practices seeking diagnosis-centered care.Practical implicationsA practice that shifts to a diagnosis-driven care philosophy would be best served by ensuring that the change process follows a leadership framework that is calibrated to the organization's culture.

Objectives: To document how race and ethnicity are identified, categorized, and utilized in contemporary dental public health literature. Methods: Two researchers independently performed a literature review of all articles in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology and the Journal of Public Health Dentistry over a 5-year period (2004-2009). Articles pertaining to the study of US-based populations with any mention of race or ethnicity were included. The following data were abstracted from each article: a) how each article broadly described race and/or ethnicity; b) the terms used to specifically define the races and/or ethnicities captured; c) the location of any mention of the concept of race and/or ethnicity; d) the stated purpose for including race and/or ethnicity concepts; e) the stated analytic use of race and/or ethnicity concepts; and f) the stated method used to assess race and/or ethnicity concepts. Results: Overall, race and/or ethnicity concepts were most commonly referred to within the text of the results section. Fifty percent of articles did not state their purpose for including race and/or ethnicity concepts within their studies, while 34.3 percent omitted stating their analytic use of these concepts. When assessing these concepts, 41.4 percent relied upon subject self-report. Conclusion: These data showed that there was inconsistent documentation of how race and ethnicity was measured. While race and ethnicity are important measures for public health studies and are frequently reported in dental public health research, there is no clear system for classifying these measures.

It is with great interest that we read Dr. Christman and colleagues' article, “Designing a Safety Checklist for Dental Implant Placement: A Delphi Study” (JADA 2014;145[2]:131-140), which described the development of a checklist to standardize the process of dental implant placement. Although the concern for preventing patient harm is fundamental to the practice of medicine, the 2000 publication of “To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System,”1 by the Committee on Quality of Health Care in America of the Institute of Medicine, catalyzed a patient safety and quality revolution. Against this backdrop, checklists have emerged as practical and effective tools for realizing a safer health care environment. Checklists support team members by presenting critical tasks as a list, a format that simplifies understanding and recall of information. Long used in aviation, checklists increasingly are being relied on in medicine to reduce the occurrence of errors of omission, create reliable evaluations, and improve quality and use of best practices.2 Dentistry has lagged behind in the attention paid to safety, and the use of checklists within the dental world is almost nonexistent. Dr. Christman and colleagues' work, therefore, is an encouraging step forward. As the authors suggest, it is critical to test the safety checklist in a clinical environment to establish its functionality and compatibility with task execution. Beyond that, regardless of the systematic approach used in the design of this checklist, perhaps the most important determinant of its success will be how it is implemented.3 Target users must have a full understanding of the purpose of the checklist, and they must be trained in how to use it.3 Usefulness of the checklist also requires support of all staff, dedicated champions and endorsement by clinic leaders. Along the same lines, we have been fortunate to obtain a grant (1R21DE023408-01A1) from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research titled “Improving the Quality of Dental Care by Implementing a Clinician Checklist.” In a pilot work, we observed that a record of fundamental tasks that directly affect the quality of dental care (such as updating the medical history and medication history) often is missing from patient records. This implies that although most dental care providers agree on what constitutes basic best practices, they often fail to complete and/or document the associated tasks. We are developing a checklist that will be implemented to support clinical dental team members in consistently performing and documenting these tasks. Again, we are excited that momentum is being generated regarding the topic of patient safety in dentistry. We congratulate Dr. Christman and colleagues for their pioneering work and look forward to learning about the quality improvement that accompanies the implementation of this implant checklist.

Background— Many different genetic and clinical factors have been identified as causes or contributors to atherosclerosis. We present a model of preclinical atherosclerosis based on genetic and clinical data that predicts the presence of coronary artery calcification in healthy Americans of European descent 45 to 84 years of age in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Methods and Results— We assessed 712 individuals for the presence or absence of coronary artery calcification and assessed their genotypes for 2882 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. With the use of these single-nucleotide polymorphisms and relevant clinical data, a Bayesian network that predicts the presence of coronary calcification was constructed. The model contained 13 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (from genes AGTR1, ALOX15, INSR, PRKAB1, IL1R2, ESR2, KCNK1, FBLN5, PPARA, VEGFA, PON1, TDRD6, PLA2G7, and 1 ancestry informative marker) and 5 clinical variables (sex, age, weight, smoking, and diabetes mellitus) and achieved 85% predictive accuracy, as measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. This is a significant ( P Conclusions— We present an investigation of joint genetic and clinical factors associated with atherosclerosis that shows predictive results for both cases, as well as enhanced performance for their combination.

Cardioembolic stroke is a complex disease resulting from the interaction of numerous factors. Using data from Genes Affecting Stroke Risk and Outcome Study (GASROS), we show that a multivariate predictive model built using Bayesian networks is able to achieve a predictive accuracy of 86% on the fitted values as computed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve relative to that of the individual single nucleotide polymorphism with the highest prognostic performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve=60%).

Although dentists perform highly technical procedures in complex environments, patient safety has not received the same focus in dentistry as in medicine. Cultivating a robust patient safety culture is foundational to minimizing patient harm, but little is known about how dental teams view patient safety or the patient safety culture within their practice. As a step toward rectifying that omission, the goals of this study were to benchmark the patient safety culture in three U.S. dental schools, identifying areas for improvement. The extensively validated Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture (MOSOPS), developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, was administered to dental faculty, dental hygienists, dental students, and staff at the three schools. Forty-seven percent of the 328 invited individuals completed the survey. The “Teamwork” category received the highest marks and “Patient Care Tracking and Follow-Up” and “Leadership Support for Patient Safety” the lowest. Only 48 percent of the respondents rated systems and processes in place to prevent/catch patient problems as good/excellent. All patient safety dimensions received lower marks than in medical practices. These findings and the inherent risk associated with dental procedures lead to the conclusion that dentistry in general, and academic dental clinics in particular, stands to benefit from an increased focus on patient safety. This first published use of the MOSOPS in a dental clinic setting highlights both clinical and educational priorities for improving the safety of care in dental school clinics.