P J Cannell1. 1. School of Health and Human Sciences, University of Essex, Elmer Approach, Southend on Sea, SS1 1LW. pjcann@essex.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This audit was carried out to assess the level to which recall intervals were individually and appropriately selected for patients attending dental practices across a primary care trust (PCT) area in Essex. METHOD: A retrospective audit was carried out by reference to patient records to assess various criteria, including whether patients were categorised according to risk of oral disease, whether an appropriate recall had been selected and whether a discussion regarding a recall interval had been undertaken. An educational event highlighting the issue of recall intervals was held. Subsequent to this a prospective audit was undertaken to assess relevant criteria. RESULTS: Prospective audit data showed a marked increase in the use of patient risk assessments for caries, periodontal disease, oral cancer and non-carious tooth surface loss (NCTSL). Recall intervals were also more often selected based on a patient's risk status and discussed with the patient compared to that observed in the retrospective audit data. CONCLUSION: This audit was successful as a tool to bring about change in the behaviour of dentists regarding their determination of appropriate recall intervals for patients. Whether that change in behaviour is long-term or transient requires further investigation.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This audit was carried out to assess the level to which recall intervals were individually and appropriately selected for patients attending dental practices across a primary care trust (PCT) area in Essex. METHOD: A retrospective audit was carried out by reference to patient records to assess various criteria, including whether patients were categorised according to risk of oral disease, whether an appropriate recall had been selected and whether a discussion regarding a recall interval had been undertaken. An educational event highlighting the issue of recall intervals was held. Subsequent to this a prospective audit was undertaken to assess relevant criteria. RESULTS: Prospective audit data showed a marked increase in the use of patient risk assessments for caries, periodontal disease, oral cancer and non-carious tooth surface loss (NCTSL). Recall intervals were also more often selected based on a patient's risk status and discussed with the patient compared to that observed in the retrospective audit data. CONCLUSION: This audit was successful as a tool to bring about change in the behaviour of dentists regarding their determination of appropriate recall intervals for patients. Whether that change in behaviour is long-term or transient requires further investigation.