A A Anjrini1, E Kruger1, M Tennant1. 1. International Research Collaborative - Oral Health and Equity, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy Nedlands, 6009 Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom and its national healthcare system represent a unique comparison for many other developed countries (such as Australia and France), as the practice of prophylactic removal of third molars in the United Kingdom has been discouraged for nearly two decades, with clear guidelines issued by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2000 to limit third molar removal to only pathological situations. No such guidelines exist in Australia or France. The healthcare systems in England, France and Australia all use the International Classification of Disease (ICD) coding system for diagnostic categorising of all admissions to hospitals. AIM: This study rested upon the opportunity of a universal coding system and semi-open access data to complete the first comparative study on an international scale of hospitalisations for removal of impacted teeth (between 99/00 and 08/09). RESULTS: Our international comparison revealed significant differences in rates of admission, with England having rates approximately five times less than France, and seven times less than Australia. Those results could be explained by the implementation of guidelines in the United Kingdom, and the absence of similar guidelines in France and Australia.
BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom and its national healthcare system represent a unique comparison for many other developed countries (such as Australia and France), as the practice of prophylactic removal of third molars in the United Kingdom has been discouraged for nearly two decades, with clear guidelines issued by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2000 to limit third molar removal to only pathological situations. No such guidelines exist in Australia or France. The healthcare systems in England, France and Australia all use the International Classification of Disease (ICD) coding system for diagnostic categorising of all admissions to hospitals. AIM: This study rested upon the opportunity of a universal coding system and semi-open access data to complete the first comparative study on an international scale of hospitalisations for removal of impacted teeth (between 99/00 and 08/09). RESULTS: Our international comparison revealed significant differences in rates of admission, with England having rates approximately five times less than France, and seven times less than Australia. Those results could be explained by the implementation of guidelines in the United Kingdom, and the absence of similar guidelines in France and Australia.