D Buck1. 1. Department of Dental Public Health and Oral Health Services Research, Guy's King's and St. Thomas' Medical and Dental Institute, King's College, London, UK. david.buck@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficiency with which health authorities' Community Dental Services provide dental care in England. METHODS: A data envelopment analysis of inputs (hours worked by dental officers, therapists, hygienists and others) and outputs (screening, treatment, prevention) of the Community Dental Service (CDS) was conducted. Relative efficiency ratings of the CDS by health authority were further analysed in order to identify external factors which effect efficiency and are outside the control of the Community Dental Service. RESULTS: The relative efficiency of the CDS varies widely in England--on average the CDS is operating at 75% of efficient levels compared to best-practice services. This could not be explained by plausible factors outside the CDS's control, such as differences in deprivation and urban-rural differences between health authorities. CONCLUSIONS: These results, if validated by further studies, should be disturbing since many Community Dental Services services appear to be under-performing. However, this data-driven study could not uncover the detailed context of an individual service's performance. A useful next step would be detailed case-studies of several "star" and under-performing services to search for deeper reasons underpinning relative performance levels.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficiency with which health authorities' Community Dental Services provide dental care in England. METHODS: A data envelopment analysis of inputs (hours worked by dental officers, therapists, hygienists and others) and outputs (screening, treatment, prevention) of the Community Dental Service (CDS) was conducted. Relative efficiency ratings of the CDS by health authority were further analysed in order to identify external factors which effect efficiency and are outside the control of the Community Dental Service. RESULTS: The relative efficiency of the CDS varies widely in England--on average the CDS is operating at 75% of efficient levels compared to best-practice services. This could not be explained by plausible factors outside the CDS's control, such as differences in deprivation and urban-rural differences between health authorities. CONCLUSIONS: These results, if validated by further studies, should be disturbing since many Community Dental Services services appear to be under-performing. However, this data-driven study could not uncover the detailed context of an individual service's performance. A useful next step would be detailed case-studies of several "star" and under-performing services to search for deeper reasons underpinning relative performance levels.