S Eliyas1, P F A Briggs2,3, J T Newton4, J E Gallagher4. 1. St George's University Hospital's NHS Foundation Trust and Hodsoll House Specialist Practice, Kent, UK. 2. Barts Health NHS Trust, Whitechapel, London, UK. 3. Health Education England London and South East, Stewart House, Russell Square London, UK. 4. King's College London Dental Institute, Population and Patient Health Division, London, UK.
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the feasibility of measuring quality of endodontic care provided by general dental practitioners (GDPs), using clinical, radiographic and patient-related outcomes, as well as understanding practitioner views and estimating financial costs. Methods: Multi-faceted mixed-methods two-part study involving retrospective analysis of the educational component (course assessments, endodontic training blocks and analysis of a sample of teeth treated at the beginning and end of training), and prospective analysis of patients treated by these dentists after completion of training. Participant: Dentists working in and patients treated in primary dental care in London. Intervention: Twenty-four-month training in endodontics. Comparison: Dentists enrolled in the training at different time points. Outcome: Measuring outcome of endodontic treatment. Results: Eight dentists (mean 36 years, SD = 8.2 years) participated in training. Subsequently, five of these dentists (mean 34.2 years, SD = 7.08 years) contributed to the prospective study and recruited 135 patients. Thirty-five patients completed all patient-related outcome questionnaires, and of these there were 16 cases with complete clinical and radiographic data (12%) at follow-up (10.1–36.4 months). Preliminary analysis revealed that a minimum of 45 cases of complete data would be required for multivariate analysis, requiring the recruitment of in excess of 375 patients to future studies to account for this level of loss to follow-up. Conclusions: Findings suggest it is possible to carry out mixed-methods and treatment-related outcome-based research in primary care. Measurement/data capture tools developed were tested and used successfully in measuring the adherence to treatment processes and outcome of endodontic treatment.
Objectives: To explore the feasibility of measuring quality of endodontic care provided by general dental practitioners (GDPs), using clinical, radiographic and patient-related outcomes, as well as understanding practitioner views and estimating financial costs. Methods: Multi-faceted mixed-methods two-part study involving retrospective analysis of the educational component (course assessments, endodontic training blocks and analysis of a sample of teeth treated at the beginning and end of training), and prospective analysis of patients treated by these dentists after completion of training. Participant: Dentists working in and patients treated in primary dental care in London. Intervention: Twenty-four-month training in endodontics. Comparison: Dentists enrolled in the training at different time points. Outcome: Measuring outcome of endodontic treatment. Results: Eight dentists (mean 36 years, SD = 8.2 years) participated in training. Subsequently, five of these dentists (mean 34.2 years, SD = 7.08 years) contributed to the prospective study and recruited 135 patients. Thirty-five patients completed all patient-related outcome questionnaires, and of these there were 16 cases with complete clinical and radiographic data (12%) at follow-up (10.1–36.4 months). Preliminary analysis revealed that a minimum of 45 cases of complete data would be required for multivariate analysis, requiring the recruitment of in excess of 375 patients to future studies to account for this level of loss to follow-up. Conclusions: Findings suggest it is possible to carry out mixed-methods and treatment-related outcome-based research in primary care. Measurement/data capture tools developed were tested and used successfully in measuring the adherence to treatment processes and outcome of endodontic treatment.
Authors: Mark Porcheret; Chris Main; Peter Croft; Robert McKinley; Andrew Hassell; Krysia Dziedzic Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Vijay Parashar; Nitin Jhunjhunwala; Aiyana Parthi; Vaibhav K Singh; Kishan Agarwal; Tejas M Kulkarni Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2020-05-31