The role of team dentistry in improving access to dental care in the UK.
(1/40)The role of professionals complementary to dentistry (PCDs) in improving access to NHS primary dental care is discussed. The pattern of under-supply of dentists in poor socio-economic areas is highlighted and identified, in drawing a parallel to the workings of primary medical teams, as a possible area where PCDs could be used. (+info)
Patient satisfaction with the comprehensive care model of dental care delivery.
(2/40)In the summer of 1997, the College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, changed its predoctoral clinics from the traditional model to the comprehensive care (CC) model. Although the CC model is considered the better model for delivery of care, from the patient perspective it has not been previously evaluated. The purpose of this study was to compare the two dental care delivery systems--the traditional model and the CC model--using patient satisfaction. The Dental Satisfaction Questionnaire (DSQ) developed by the Rand Corporation was used to assess patient satisfaction. The questionnaire consists of nineteen items, measuring overall satisfaction and subscales of access, pain management, and quality. The questionnaire was self-administered to active and recall patients in the summers of 1997 and 1998 to evaluate satisfaction with care in the traditional and CC models respectively. The completed DSQ was returned by 119 respondents in 1997 and 116 respondents in 1998. There were no significant differences in age. gender, and self-rated general and oral health of patients using the two delivery systems. No statistically significant differences were seen in the overall Dental Satisfaction Index and the sub-scales of access, pain management, and quality of care. Statistically significant differences were observed on only two of the nineteen individual items. We conclude that there was no difference in satisfaction levels of our patients between the two dental care delivery models. (+info)
Current management of oral cancer. A multidisciplinary approach.
(3/40)BACKGROUND: Recent basic science discoveries have contributed to our understanding of the etiology of oral cancer and allowed us to consider innovative approaches to therapy. METHODS: The authors evaluated and summarized current approaches to the management of oral cancer, emphasizing the multidisciplinary team approach to coordinate surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Current concepts in management, including complications of therapy, are described. RESULTS: State-of-the-art surgical techniques can spare patients with oral cancer from much of the morbidity and complications common in the past. The refinement of treatment strategies reduces complications and improves efficacy. Many exciting new clinical trials in the areas of gene therapy and immunomodulation are showing promise. CONCLUSIONS: Management of oral cancer has undergone radical change in the past 10 years and continues to evolve rapidly. Discoveries in molecular biology, diagnosis, surgery, radiation therapy and medical oncology have altered many traditional concepts and practices. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: General dental practitioners need to understand current treatment modalities for oral and pharyngeal cancers to determine to whom they should refer patients for the most appropriate treatment, and to make recommendations regarding complications associated with these cancers. (+info)
Making a comprehensive diagnosis in a comprehensive care curriculum.
(4/40)Comprehensive care models in dental education encourage students to deliver patient-centered care. But to deliver effective comprehensive care, a clinician must first make a comprehensive diagnosis. Students of general dentistry are taught to make one or more diagnoses as defined by the dental specialties, and to direct patient care accordingly. Without a comprehensive diagnosis, patients may receive fragmented, poorly prioritized care that is inappropriate to their overall oral health. This paper presents a simple diagnostic classification that can be used to make a comprehensive diagnosis with which to guide the student of general dentistry in planning comprehensive care. (+info)
Military and VA general dentistry training: a national resource.
(5/40)In 1999, HRSA contracted with the UCLA School of Dentistry to evaluate the postgraduate general dentistry (PDG) training programs. The purpose of this article is to compare the program characteristics of the PGD training programs sponsored by the Armed Services (military) and VA. Surveys mailed to sixty-six VA and forty-two military program directors in fall 2000 sought information regarding the infrastructure of the program, the program emphasis, resident preparation prior to entering the program, and a description of patients served and types of services provided. Of the eighty-one returned surveys (75 percent response rate), thirty were received from military program directors and fifty-one were received from VA program directors. AEGDs reported treating a higher proportion of children patients and GPRs more medically intensive, disadvantaged and HIV/AIDS patients. Over half of the directors reported increases in curriculum emphasis in implantology. The program directors reported a high level of inadequate preparation among incoming dental residents. Having a higher ratio of residents to total number of faculty predicted inadequate preparation (p=.022) although the model was weak. Although HRSA doesn't financially support federally sponsored programs, their goal of improved dental training to care for medically compromised individuals is facilitated through these programs, thus making military and VA general dentistry programs a national resource. (+info)
Treatment planning processes in dental schools.
(6/40)Treatment planning is a critical aspect of clinical education in the dental school curriculum. It is surprising, therefore, that so little attention has been given to this subject in the dental literature. The importance of treatment planning is reinforced in the standards and the tests that clearly present methods and necessity for treatment planning. However, there is minimal evidence about how these treatment planning courses have been evaluated, how they were incorporated into the curriculum, or how they have been integrated into treatment planning in the academic clinical setting. The purpose of this study was to survey and profile current treatment planning processes in U.S. dental schools. A questionnaire consisting of twenty-nine items relating to treatment plan preparation, process, and outcomes was mailed to fifty-four U.S. dental schools. The primary topics included patient assignments, treatment planning, plan sequencing, plan presentation, informed consent, and plan modifications. Forty-seven of the fifty-four U.S. dental schools (87 percent) completed and returned the surveys. Profiling the treatment planning process in dental schools reveals many similarities. Typically, the schools screen patients prior to assignment to students and expect the student diagnostician to complete the planning process as well as comprehensive care. The patient's welfare is the primary determinant of the content of the plan in 92 percent of U.S. dental schools. Secondly, though current accreditation standards are concentrated on competencies, the treatment plans are influenced by quantitative requirements. Third, the plan is usually completed during the second patient visit after screening. Fourth, the approaches vary among the schools when a multidisciplinary or complex treatment plan is appropriate. Some depend on a panel of experts, whereas others do not have interactive planning with specialists. A significant number of schools decentralize treatment planning and delegate part of the plan to disciplines or group practice leaders. Fifth, the treatment plans and treatment risks are presented in accordance with the intent of the accreditation guidelines; however, fewer than half the schools explain the risk of procedures to patients at the time of plan presentation. Finally, plans change frequently, but the modifications are generally considered to be minor. (+info)
Patient perceptions of professionalism in dentistry.
(7/40)The purpose of this study was to examine how patients perceived the professionalism of University of Minnesota School of Dentistry students, faculty, and staff. Professionalism is defined by the authors as an image that will promote a successful relationship with the patient. Patients within comprehensive care clinics were asked to assess physical attributes and behaviors of the dental care providers using a questionnaire. The patients read statements dealing with characteristics of the dental care providers and responded as to whether they agreed, were neutral, or disagreed with the statement. The surveyed population consisted of 103 males and 97 females, 64 percent of whom lacked insurance coverage. Fifty-one percent of the patients were between the ages of forty-four and sixty-nine, but the overall age distribution was dispersed over a range of eighteen to one hundred. Our research found that all dental care providers displayed a professional appearance as well as behavior. The attire of the dental care provider affected the comfort and anxiety levels of patients, as did first impressions of both students and faculty. Most patients reported that students and faculty displayed effective time management and used appropriate language during the appointment. Finally, hairstyle, makeup, and jewelry appeared to have little effect on patients' opinions of the various dental care providers. (+info)
Predoctoral clinical curriculum models at U.S. and Canadian dental schools.
(8/40)In fall 2002, the ADEA Section on Comprehensive Care and General Dentistry conducted a survey of the predoctoral clinical curriculum models at sixty-four North American dental schools. Fifty-eight percent of the schools reported that most patient care is provided in a comprehensive care clinic setting, 22 percent reported that most patient care is provided in discipline-specific settings, and 20 percent reported a hybrid of comprehensive care and discipline-specific settings. While ten Primarily Discipline-Based (PD) schools have instituted new Primarily Comprehensive Care (PCC) or Hybrid clinical curricula since 1997, one PCC school has converted to a Hybrid model, and one PCC school has converted to a PD model. PCC curriculum models were frequently associated with the following institutional factors: more densely populated metropolitan areas; private institutional sponsorship; location within a university medical center; larger class size; and more students enrolled in advanced training at the school. Curriculum factors frequently associated with PCC models included the following: increased use of simulation technology: higher proportion of clinical/teaching track faculty; higher proportion of part-time faculty; higher proportion of generalist faculty; same faculty supervising both treatment planning and patient treatment; and use of competency exams as the main requirement for completion of the curriculum. (+info)