BACKGROUND: Medical risk assessment is essential to safe patient management and the delivery of appropriate dental care. The American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA PS) Classification is widely used within medicine and dentistry, but has received significant criticism. This is the first UK survey to assess the consistency of medical risk assessment in dentistry. AIMS: (i) To determine the use and consistency of the ASA PS among dentists and anaesthetists. (ii) To consider the appropriateness of the ASA PS in relation to dental treatment planning and delivery of care. METHOD: A cross-sectional online questionnaire was distributed to anaesthetists and dental practitioners in general practice, community and hospital dental services. Questions focused on professional backgrounds, use of the ASA PS, alternative approaches to risk assessment in everyday practice and scoring of eight hypothetical patients using ASA PS. RESULTS: There were 101 responses, 82 were complete. Anaesthetists recorded ASA PS score more frequently than dental practitioners and found it more useful. Inconsistencies were evident in the assignment of ASA PS scores both between and within professional groups. CONCLUSION: Many dental practitioners did not use or find ASA PS helpful, with significant inconsistencies in its use. An awareness of alternative assessment scales may be useful across settings. Accepting its limitations, it would be helpful for all dentists to be educated in ASA PS and its use in medical risk assessment, particularly in relation to conscious sedation.
BACKGROUND: Medical risk assessment is essential to safe patient management and the delivery of appropriate dental care. The American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA PS) Classification is widely used within medicine and dentistry, but has received significant criticism. This is the first UK survey to assess the consistency of medical risk assessment in dentistry. AIMS: (i) To determine the use and consistency of the ASA PS among dentists and anaesthetists. (ii) To consider the appropriateness of the ASA PS in relation to dental treatment planning and delivery of care. METHOD: A cross-sectional online questionnaire was distributed to anaesthetists and dental practitioners in general practice, community and hospital dental services. Questions focused on professional backgrounds, use of the ASA PS, alternative approaches to risk assessment in everyday practice and scoring of eight hypothetical patients using ASA PS. RESULTS: There were 101 responses, 82 were complete. Anaesthetists recorded ASA PS score more frequently than dental practitioners and found it more useful. Inconsistencies were evident in the assignment of ASA PS scores both between and within professional groups. CONCLUSION: Many dental practitioners did not use or find ASA PS helpful, with significant inconsistencies in its use. An awareness of alternative assessment scales may be useful across settings. Accepting its limitations, it would be helpful for all dentists to be educated in ASA PS and its use in medical risk assessment, particularly in relation to conscious sedation.
Authors: Samer A M Nashef; Francois Roques; Bradley G Hammill; Eric D Peterson; Philippe Michel; Frederick L Grover; Richard K H Wyse; T Bruce Ferguson Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Laura L Burgoyne; Matthew P Smeltzer; Lilia A Pereiras; Angela L Norris; Alberto J De Armendi Journal: Paediatr Anaesth Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.556
Authors: Sarah Scott; Jonathan N Lund; Stuart Gold; Richard Elliott; Mair Vater; Mallicka P Chakrabarty; Thomas P Heinink; John P Williams Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 2.217