Conceptualising a framework for improving quality in primary dental care

GLOSSARY FOR DENTAL PATIENT-CENTERED OUTCOMES

Dental patient-centered outcomes can improve the relevance of clinical study results to dental patients and generate evidence to optimize health outcomes for dental patients. Dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) are of great importance to patient-centered dental care. They can be used to evaluate the health outcomes of an individual patient about the impact of oral diseases and treatment, and to assess the quality of oral health care delivery for a health care entity. dPROs are measured with dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs). dPROMs should be validated and tested before wider dissemination and application to ensure that they can accurately capture the intended dPROs. Evidence suggests inadequate dPRO usage among dental trials, as well as potential flaws in some existing dPROMs. This Glossary presents a collection of main terms in dental patient-centered outcomes to help clinicians and researchers read and understand patient-centered clinical studies in dentistry.

Evidence-Informed Oral Health Policy Making: Opportunities and Challenges

Despite a clear need for improvement in oral health systems, progress in oral health systems transformation has been slow. Substantial gaps persist in leveraging evidence and stakeholder values for collective problem solving. To truly enable evidence-informed oral health policy making, substantial "know-how" and "know-do" gaps still need to be overcome. However, there is a unique opportunity for the oral health community to learn and evolve from previous successes and failures in evidence-informed health policy making. As stated by the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges, COVID-19 has created a once-in-a-generation focus on evidence, which has fast-tracked collaboration among decision makers, researchers, and evidence intermediaries. In addition, this has led to a growing recognition of the need to formalize and strengthen evidence-support systems. This article provides an overview of recent advancements in evidence-informed health policy making, including normative goals and a health systems taxonomy, the role of evidence-support and evidence-implementation systems to improve context-specific decision-making processes, the evolution of learning health systems, and the important role of citizen deliberations. The article also highlights opportunities for evidence-informed policy making to drive change in oral health systems. All in all, strengthening capacities for evidence-informed health policy making is critical to enable and enact improvements in oral health systems.

Sustainability as part of a quality framework for the organisation of oral healthcare

This paper aims to highlight to the reader that the organisation of dentistry at a system level lags behind other healthcare professions in regulation, policy, education and research. It argues that seeing sustainability as being as important as safety in oral healthcare quality would begin to rectify this. For the practitioner, it also identifies existing guidance on practising sustainably and reinforces that it does not require radical change but evidence-based care.

Successes and challenges towards improving quality of primary health care services: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Quality health services build communities' and patients' trust in health care. It enhances the acceptability of services and increases health service coverage. Quality primary health care is imperative for universal health coverage through expanding health institutions and increasing skilled health professionals to deliver services near to people. Evidence on the quality of health system inputs, interactions between health personnel and clients, and outcomes of health care interventions is necessary. This review summarised indicators, successes, and challenges of the quality of primary health care services.

METHODS

We used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis extensions for scoping reviews to guide the article selection process. A systematic search of literature from PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted on August 23, 2022, but the preliminary search was begun on July 5, 2022. The Donabedian's quality of care framework, consisting of structure, process and outcomes, was used to operationalise and synthesise the findings on the quality of primary health care.

RESULTS

Human resources for health, law and policy, infrastructure and facilities, and resources were the common structure indicators. Diagnosis (health assessment and/or laboratory tests) and management (health information, education, and treatment) procedures were the process indicators. Clinical outcomes (cure, mortality, treatment completion), behaviour change, and satisfaction were the common indicators of outcome. Lower cause-specific mortality and a lower rate of hospitalisation in high-income countries were successes, while high mortality due to tuberculosis and the geographical disparity in quality care were challenges in developing countries. There also exist challenges in developed countries (e.g., poor quality mental health care due to a high admission rate). Shortage of health workers was a challenge both in developed and developing countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of care indicators varied according to the health care problems, which resulted in a disparity in the successes and challenges across countries around the world. Initiatives to improve the quality of primary health care services should ensure the availability of adequate health care providers, equipped health care facilities, appropriate financing mechanisms, enhance compliance with health policy and laws, as well as community and client participation. Additionally, each country should be proactive in monitoring and evaluation of performance indicators in each dimension (structure, process, and outcome) of quality of primary health care services.

Unlocking the potential of NHS primary care dental datasets

Introduction Maximising the use of routinely collected health data for research is a key part of the UK Government's Industrial Strategy. Rich data are generated by NHS primary care dental services, but the extent of their use in research is unknown.Aims To profile the utility of the post-2006 NHS dental datasets for research, map how they have been used to date and develop recommendations to maximise their utility.Methods The content of and access to the four UK NHS dental datasets was collated using publicly available information and a free-text questionnaire, completed by the relevant data controllers. A scoping review was carried out to identify and map literature that has utilised NHS dental activity data.Results The contents of the UK NHS dental activity datasets are described, alongside how they may be accessed for research. Strengths and weaknesses of these datasets for research are highlighted. The scoping review identified 33 studies which had utilised NHS dental activity data since 2006. We classified 15 as public health practice, 11 as service evaluation and 7 as research.Conclusion In comparision to other NHS activity datasets, it appears that the UK dental datasets have been underutilised for research. We make 11 recommendations on how their utility for research may be increased.

Oral health care quality as viewed by leading dentists and their superiors - a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to investigate how leading dentists and their superiors view oral health care quality, as they are in key positions to pursue high-quality care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We interviewed five leading dentists and three of their superiors from Southern Finland via semi-structured telephone interviews including themes based on the Institute of Medicine's six quality dimensions. The material was analysed using theory-driven content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants divided safety into occupational, instrumental and patient safety and considered timeliness as timing treatment clinically correctly. They also linked timeliness to patient-centeredness with wider opening-hours and quick access to care. Effective care was considered as a prerequisite for efficiency. Participants saw effectiveness as treating the illness, not the number of treatment measures. Leading dentists took survival time of fillings and cost per operation as a measurement of efficiency, and the superiors measured efficiency by the number of treated patients or visits. The leading dentists considered the equal treatment of patients, whereas the superiors took the amount of care provided with public resources and co-workers into consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

The participants shared similar views of oral health care quality which should enable cooperation. Observed minor differences relate to professional background and leading positions.

A Systematic Literature Review of Quality Management Initiatives in Dental Clinics

By considering the recently proposed definitions and metrics, oral healthcare quality management (OHQM) emerges as a distinct field in the wider healthcare area. The goal of this paper is to systematically review quality management initiatives (QMIs) implementation by dental clinics. The research methodology approach is a review of 72 sources that have been analyzed using the Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome Framework (CIMO). The analysis identifies five mechanisms that explain how quality management initiatives are implemented by dental clinics. The simplest QMIs implementations are related to (1) overall quality. The next ones, in terms of complexity, are related to (2) patient satisfaction, (3) service quality, (4) internal processes improvement, and (5) business outcomes. This paper is the first attempt to provide a critical review of this topic and represents an important advancement by providing a theoretical framework that explains how quality management is implemented by practitioners in this field. The results can be used by scholars for advancing their studies related to this emerging research area and by healthcare managers in order to better implement their quality management initiatives.

Planning the oral health workforce: Time for innovation

The levels and types of oral health problems occurring in populations change over time, while advances in technology change the way oral health problems are addressed and the ways care is delivered. These rapid changes have major implications for the size and mix of the oral health workforce, yet the methods used to plan the oral health workforce have remained rigid and isolated from planning of oral healthcare services and healthcare expenditures. In this paper, we argue that the innovation culture that has driven major developments in content and delivery of oral health care must also be applied to planning the oral health workforce if we are to develop ‘fit for purpose’ healthcare systems that meet the needs of populations in the 21st century. An innovative framework for workforce planning is presented focussed on responding to changes in population needs, service developments for meeting those needs and optimal models of care delivery.