BACKGROUND: Following major change in UK policy regarding dental general anaesthesia (DGA) in 2001, there appears to be little information available about paediatric DGA services, their organisation, availability and utilisation. AIMS: To establish the location, organisation and monitoring systems of paediatric DGA services in Yorkshire and the Humber Strategic Health Authority and to audit these services against existing standards of best practice. DESIGN: A postal survey of all potential paediatric DGA providers in Yorkshire and the Humber. RESULTS: Thirty-one possible DGA service providers were identified, 24 of which provided paediatric DGAs. Of 84 DGA lists identified, 75 regularly treated children, and nine were run on an ad hoc basis. The lists were held in 20 centres. The number of patients treated per list varied depending on treatment provided, ranging from 3.9 to 7.5 patients per list. Maximum waiting times varied from three to 84 weeks. Outcome data recording methods varied. Just over half of respondents used the Hospital Episode Statistics system; the remainder used other systems, or none. CONCLUSIONS: There was much variation in how DGA lists were organised. Most lists met some of the accepted standards, but very few met all. Waiting times were largely in accordance with national targets.
BACKGROUND: Following major change in UK policy regarding dental general anaesthesia (DGA) in 2001, there appears to be little information available about paediatric DGA services, their organisation, availability and utilisation. AIMS: To establish the location, organisation and monitoring systems of paediatric DGA services in Yorkshire and the Humber Strategic Health Authority and to audit these services against existing standards of best practice. DESIGN: A postal survey of all potential paediatric DGA providers in Yorkshire and the Humber. RESULTS: Thirty-one possible DGA service providers were identified, 24 of which provided paediatric DGAs. Of 84 DGA lists identified, 75 regularly treated children, and nine were run on an ad hoc basis. The lists were held in 20 centres. The number of patients treated per list varied depending on treatment provided, ranging from 3.9 to 7.5 patients per list. Maximum waiting times varied from three to 84 weeks. Outcome data recording methods varied. Just over half of respondents used the Hospital Episode Statistics system; the remainder used other systems, or none. CONCLUSIONS: There was much variation in how DGA lists were organised. Most lists met some of the accepted standards, but very few met all. Waiting times were largely in accordance with national targets.