| Literature DB >> 36188656 |
Baraa Issam Abdulrahman1, Khaled Mohammed Alasmari1, Majed Nasser Alratiq1, Fahad Adel Alherab1, Mohammed Abdullah Alfantoukh1, Abdullah Adel Alherab1.
Abstract
This research aimed to assess the availability and need of dental emergency kits in Saudi Arabia university hospitals. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 267 dentists, including undergraduate, dental interns, general dentists, and specialists in 6 university hospitals (private and government colleges). In addition, a closed-ended questionnaire was distributed through emails using the online platform. The data revealed that 49.4% of dentists faced medical emergencies. Out of them, 72.7% said that emergency kits were available in their clinics. Sugar sources and oxygen were most commonly available. On the other hand, 37.8% of dentists handled emergencies independently, 34.5% considered themselves competent with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and 28.8% were confident of using emergency (ER) drugs. The most common medical emergencies were vasovagal syncope and hypoglycemia. The emergency kit in dental clinics is relatively available, and the incidence of medical emergencies is relatively minor. However, the competence and confidence of the dentists in tackling an emergency is low, including handling of emergency (ER), knowledge of CPR, and its performance. Therefore, CPR courses should be improved and promoted more widely for this purpose. ©2022 JOURNAL of MEDICINE and LIFE.Entities:
Keywords: CPR; CPR – Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ER – Emergency; GP – General practitioner; OMFS – Oral and maxillofacial surgery; Saudi Arabia; emergency drugs; medical emergency
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36188656 PMCID: PMC9514817 DOI: 10.25122/jml-2022-0012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Life ISSN: 1844-122X
Figure 1Description of the socio-demographic and professional profile of the dentists (n=267).
Emergency handling experience and competence.
| Frequency | Percent | Chi-Square test P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Yes | 194 | 72.7% | p<0.001* |
| No | 73 | 27.3% | ||
|
| None | 135 | 50.6% | p<0.001 |
| 1 to 2 cases | 85 | 31.8% | ||
| 3 or more cases | 47 | 17.6% | ||
|
| Sugar source | 152 | 59.90% | 0.001* |
| Oxygen | 145 | 56.60% | 0.037* | |
| Adrenalin | 114 | 42.70% | 0.019* | |
| Aspirin | 97 | 36.30% | p<0.00* | |
| Nitroglycerine | 66 | 24.70% | p<0.001* | |
| Diazepam | 55 | 20.60% | p<0.001* | |
| Salbutamol Inhaler | 47 | 17.60% | p<0.001* | |
| Diphenhydramine | 38 | 14.20% | p<0.001* | |
|
| Called an ambulance | 36 | 13.50% | p<0.001* |
| Called another dentist | 70 | 26.20% | ||
| Called a physician | 60 | 22.50% | ||
| Handled it myself | 101 | 37.80% | ||
|
| Excellent | 33 | 12.40% | p<0.001* |
| Very good | 102 | 38.20% | ||
| Fair | 97 | 36.30% | ||
| Poor | 18 | 6.70% | ||
| Very poor | 4 | 1.50% | ||
| No training received | 13 | 4.90% | ||
|
| Yes | 92 | 34.50% | 0.336 |
| No | 78 | 29.20% | ||
| Don't know | 97 | 36.30% | ||
|
| Confident | 77 | 28.80% | 0.012* |
| Not confident | 112 | 41.90% | ||
| Don't know | 78 | 29.20% | ||
Figure 2The most common emergency drug available in the clinic.
Association of medical emergencies encountered and years in practice.
| Years in practice | Pearson's Chi-Square test P-value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 year or less | 2 to 3 years | More than 3 years | |||
|
| None | 49 (70%) | 55 (48.2%) | 31 (37.3%) | p<0.001* |
| 1 to 2 cases | 15 (21.4%) | 43 (37.7%) | 27 (32.5%) | ||
| 3 or more cases | 6 (8.6%) | 16 (14.0%) | 25 (30.1%) | ||
Nature of medical emergencies.
| Frequency | Percent | Chi-Square test P-value | Number of ER encountered | Pearson's Chi-Square test P-value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None | 1 to 2 cases | 3 or more cases | ||||||
|
| None | 69 | 25.8% | p<0.001* | 54 (40%) | 12 (14.1%) | 3 (6.4%) | p<0.001* |
| Adverse drug reaction | 2 | 0.7% | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.1%) | |||
| Asthmatic attack | 7 | 2.6% | 2 (1.5%) | 2 (2.4%) | 3 (6.4%) | |||
| Foreign body aspiration | 6 | 2.2% | 4 (3.0%) | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (2.1%) | |||
| Heart-related problem | 8 | 3.0% | 5 (3.7%) | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (2.1%) | |||
| Hypoglycemia | 78 | 29.2% | 29 (21.5%) | 30 (35.3%) | 19 (40.4%) | |||
| Seizures | 5 | 1.9% | 3 (2.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.3%) | |||
| Vasovagal syncope | 87 | 32.6% | 35 (25.9%) | 37 (43.5%) | 15 (31.9%) | |||
| Others | 5 | 1.9% | 2 (1.5%) | 1 (1.2%) | 2 (4.3%) | |||
Figure 3The most common medical emergency in the dental clinic.
Association of emergency kit availability with emergency cases encountered.
| ER kit available | Pearson's Chi-Square test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||||
|
| None | Count | 88 | 47 | 0.002* |
| % | 45.4% | 64.4% | |||
| 1 to 2 cases | Count | 63 | 22 | ||
| % | 32.5% | 30.1% | |||
| 3 or more cases | Count | 43 | 4 | ||
| % | 22.2% | 5.5% | |||
|
| Called an ambulance | Count | 21 | 15 | p<0.001* |
| % | 10.8% | 20.5% | |||
| Called another dentist | Count | 38 | 32 | ||
| % | 19.6% | 43.8% | |||
| Called a physician | Count | 40 | 20 | ||
| % | 20.6% | 27.4% | |||
| Handled it myself | Count | 95 | 6 | ||
| % | 49.0% | 8.2% | |||
Association of demographic factors with emergency handling experience and competence.
| Emergencies encountered in the past 3 years | Chi Square test P-value | CPR competence | Chi Square test P-value | ER drugs confidence | Chi Square test P-value | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| None | 1 to 2 cases | 3 or more cases | Yes | No | Don't know | Confident | Not confident | Don't know | |||||
|
| Below 25 years | 50.9% | 34.9% | 14.3% | 0.098 | 26.3% | 32.6% | 41.1% | 0.001* | 24.0% | 44.6% | 31.4% | 0.055 NS* |
| 25 years and above | 44.6% | 27.2% | 28.3% | 50.0% | 22.8% | 27.2% | 38.0% | 37.0% | 25.0% | ||||
|
| Male | 41.6% | 37.0% | 21.4% | 0.024* | 40.9% | 28.6% | 30.5% | 0.02* | 37.7% | 37.7% | 24.7% | 0.001 S** |
| Female | 58.4% | 25.7% | 15.9% | 25.7% | 30.1% | 44.2% | 16.8% | 47.8% | 35.4% | ||||
NS* – Non Significant; S** – Significant.
Association of the place of study and place of work with emergency competence.
| Place of study | Pearson's Chi-square P-value | Place of work | Pearson's Chi-square P-value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inside Saudi Arabia | Outside Saudi Arabia | Private | Government | ||||
|
| Excellent | 12.9% | 7.4% | 0.122, NS | 12.4% | 12.3% | 0.804, NS |
| Very good | 39.2% | 29.6% | 34.9% | 41.3% | |||
| Fair | 35.4% | 44.4% | 39.5% | 33.3% | |||
| Poor | 7.1% | 3.7% | 7.8% | 5.8% | |||
| Very poor | 1.7% | 0% | 1.6% | 1.4% | |||
| No training received | 3.8% | 14.8% | 3.9% | 5.8% | |||
|
| Yes | 34.2% | 37.0% | 0.935, NS | 27.1% | 41.3% | 0.002, S |
| No | 29.2% | 29.6% | 38.8% | 20.3% | |||
| Don't know | 36.7% | 33.3% | 34.1% | 38.4% | |||
|
| Confident | 27.1% | 44.4% | 0.112, NS | 25.6% | 31.9% | 0.517, NS |
| Not confident | 43.8% | 25.9% | 43.4% | 40.6% | |||
| Don't know | 29.2% | 29.6% | 31.0% | 27.5% | |||
S – Significant; NS – Not Significant.