Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze referral patterns to a university-based oral medicine (OM) clinic and to identify access issues to OM care., Study Design: A retrospective patient chart review on all OM specialists at the University of Alberta (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) over a 1-year period was performed. Data collected included patient age and gender, referring clinician training and experience, reason and urgency of referral, provisional and final diagnosis, and the referral times. Proportions for data points were collected by using a 95% Wilson Score confidence interval. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were performed for significant differences., Results: In total, 924 patients were included. Dentists referred 81.4% of the cases, with the remaining cases referred by physicians. Patients traveled, on average, 55.44 km to the OM clinic, with a mean wait time of 105.5 days. White/red lesions were the most common referral reason (38%), with the tongue (21.8%) being the most common site of concern. There was no significant difference in the accuracy of provisional diagnoses between clinician types. Immune-mediated conditions were the most common final diagnosis., Conclusions: The referral patterns of dental and medical practitioners are similar, with mucosal lesions being the most common referral reason. In our study population, access to care was compromised by wait times and travel distances., (Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The need and demand for oral medicine services in the United States and Canada was determined by a prospective survey of American Academy of Oral Medicine practitioners who attended the Academy's 1996 annual meeting. Of the 50 surveys returned from 149 eligible registrants, it was determined that, on the average, oral medicine practitioner respondents practiced 2.3 days per week and treated 8.7 patients per day; this amounts to more than 40,000 patient-care visits per year. Almost 90% of patients were treated because of medically compromising conditions, oral mucocutaneous disease, or chronic orofacial pain. Most of the care (52%) was provided in non-university settings. Most treatment involved the comprehensive evaluation of complex oral problems (36.7%), the prescription of medications (24.2%), or comprehensive dental treatment (21.8%) for patients with severe and life-threatening medical conditions. These results suggest that oral medicine services are needed and that demand for these services is high.