OBJECTIVE: Assessing current patient safety incident (PSI) prevention measures and risk management practices among Finnish dentists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1041 dentists practicing in the private or public sectors in southern Finland completed an online questionnaire concerning PSI prevention, PSI-reporting systems, feedback and knowledge gained from device incidents and patient-generated safety information and the knowledge of national PS-guidance. The answers were handled anonymously. Statistical evaluations were performed using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Dentists suggested multiple methods for preventing PSIs related to dental diagnostics, various treatments, equipment and devices, medications, communication, infection control and general practice safety. Preventive methods reported most frequently included working with caution and forethought, keeping accurate patient records and the availability of correct patient information. A special PSI-reporting system was used by less than one third of respondents. Feedback received on PS-related data and the utilization of guidebooks varied significantly between the studied dentist groups. CONCLUSIONS: Several PSI prevention techniques are already used in Finland. However, wide variation exists in PSI prevention and risk management practices among Finnish dentists. Systematic implementation of available safety methods would probably prevent several PSIs. The results indicate that the more dentists know about PS risks, the easier it is for them to recognize situations possibly leading to patient harm. Anonymous PSI reports, patient complaints and claims data should, therefore, be actively used for mutual learning. Increased PS education in dentistry is also needed.
OBJECTIVE: Assessing current patient safety incident (PSI) prevention measures and risk management practices among Finnish dentists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1041 dentists practicing in the private or public sectors in southern Finland completed an online questionnaire concerning PSI prevention, PSI-reporting systems, feedback and knowledge gained from device incidents and patient-generated safety information and the knowledge of national PS-guidance. The answers were handled anonymously. Statistical evaluations were performed using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Dentists suggested multiple methods for preventing PSIs related to dental diagnostics, various treatments, equipment and devices, medications, communication, infection control and general practice safety. Preventive methods reported most frequently included working with caution and forethought, keeping accurate patient records and the availability of correct patient information. A special PSI-reporting system was used by less than one third of respondents. Feedback received on PS-related data and the utilization of guidebooks varied significantly between the studied dentist groups. CONCLUSIONS: Several PSI prevention techniques are already used in Finland. However, wide variation exists in PSI prevention and risk management practices among Finnish dentists. Systematic implementation of available safety methods would probably prevent several PSIs. The results indicate that the more dentists know about PS risks, the easier it is for them to recognize situations possibly leading to patient harm. Anonymous PSI reports, patient complaints and claims data should, therefore, be actively used for mutual learning. Increased PS education in dentistry is also needed.