Pre-assessment triage of orthodontic referrals at an East Yorkshire Hospital

Knowledge and Awareness of the orthodontic triage and its uses among dental healthcare professionals - a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

In orthodontics, the triage system is used to assess the preadolescents to rule out interventions needed earlier and to assess the nature of orthodontic problems as complex or moderate. The objective of this study was to determine the knowledge and awareness of orthodontic triage and its uses among dental healthcare professionals (DHCP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A triage awareness questionnaire (TAQ) was formulated and validated as reliable by a panel of five orthodontic specialists which was then circulated online among 400 DHCP. The questionnaire consisted of nine sections that assessed the current knowledge and usage of orthodontic triage among the dental community. Frequencies and percentages were reported for all categorical variables. Chi-square was used to assess the association among the variables.

RESULTS

The response rate was 28.2% with the majority of participants being general dentists. Regarding the knowledge and use of triage, 40% of DHCP were only familiar with the word "orthodontic triage" while being unaware of how it works and 79% denied using orthodontic triage. Regarding the management of anomalies, 42% of DHCP preferred extraction as the management of supernumerary teeth (p = 0.013). Practitioners belonging to private setups performed visual inspection in growing patients for assessment of their facial features (p = 0.012). Clinicians with more than one year of experience referred young patients to orthodontic specialists for the management of crossbite (p = 0.024). Younger clinicians (25-35 years) with more than one year of experience referred adult patients to orthodontists for correction of their unesthetic smile (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides foundational data for the development of future policies and protocols supporting structured, evidence-based approaches to patient management via use of orthodontic triage. This study underscores the importance of targeted educational interventions to enhance understanding and implementation of orthodontic triage principles in clinical practice. Further probing is necessary to discern the disparity between understanding the orthodontic triage and effective employment of its components among practicing dental healthcare professionals.

Does the All Wales Universal Orthodontic Referral Form enable accurate triage of new NHS orthodontic patients? A service evaluation

Introduction This study was designed to investigate the accuracy of clinical information provided by referring general dental practitioners (GDPs) following the introduction of a standardised referral form across Wales (the All Wales Universal Orthodontic Referral Form [AWUORF]) and to see whether the information given could be reliably used to screen the referrals.Aim To evaluate whether priority cases were being readily identified and whether inappropriate referrals could be minimised, thereby potentially reducing waiting lists.Method A service evaluation involving the retrospective study of 200 consecutive referrals to a specialist practice over a three-month period. A descriptive data analysis was undertaken.Results The GDPs had successfully identified the main complaint in 156 (78%) of the referrals. Of the 44 (22%) clinically inaccurate referrals, there was no impact on the patient in terms of referral pathway in 32 (16%) cases, but in the remaining 12 (6%), 5 (2.5%) cases were prioritised unnecessarily and the remaining 7 (3.5%) would have been seen more quickly had the GDP provided the relevant clinical information. The appropriateness of referral in terms of eligibility of the patient to receive NHS-funded orthodontic treatment was high with only 18 (9%) patients failing to meet the criteria.Conclusion The AWUORF successfully guides the GDP to make appropriate referrals and enables accurate triage in the majority of cases.

Interventions to reduce waiting times for elective procedures

BACKGROUND

Long waiting times for elective healthcare procedures may cause distress among patients, may have adverse health consequences and may be perceived as inappropriate delivery and planning of health care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing waiting times for elective care, both diagnostic and therapeutic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1946-), EMBASE (1947-), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ABI Inform, the Canadian Research Index, the Science, Social Sciences and Humanities Citation Indexes, a series of databases via Proquest: Dissertations & Theses (including UK & Ireland), EconLit, PAIS (Public Affairs International), Political Science Collection, Nursing Collection, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. We sought related reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE). We searched trial registries, as well as grey literature sites and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) designs that met EPOC minimum criteria and evaluated the effectiveness of any intervention aimed at reducing waiting times for any type of elective procedure. We considered studies reporting one or more of the following outcomes: number or proportion of participants whose waiting times were above or below a specific time threshold, or participants' mean or median waiting times. Comparators could include any type of active intervention or standard practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from, and assessed risk of bias of, each included study, using a standardised form and the EPOC 'Risk of bias' tool. They classified interventions as follows: interventions aimed at (1) rationing and/or prioritising demand, (2) expanding capacity, or (3) restructuring the intake assessment/referral process.For RCTs when available, we reported preintervention and postintervention values of outcome for intervention and control groups, and we calculated the absolute change from baseline or the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI). We reanalysed ITS studies that had been inappropriately analysed using segmented time-series regression, and obtained estimates for regression coefficients corresponding to two standardised effect sizes: change in level and change in slope.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies met our inclusion criteria: three RCTs and five ITS studies involving a total of 135 general practices/primary care clinics, seven hospitals and one outpatient clinic. The studies were heterogeneous in terms of types of interventions, elective procedures and clinical conditions; this made meta-analysis unfeasible.One ITS study evaluating prioritisation of demand through a system for streamlining elective surgery services reduced the number of semi-urgent participants waiting longer than the recommended time (< 90 days) by 28 participants/mo, while no effects were found for urgent (< 30 days) versus non-urgent participants (< 365 days).Interventions aimed at restructuring the intake assessment/referral process were evaluated in seven studies. Four studies (two RCTs and two ITSs) evaluated open access, or direct booking/referral: One RCT, which showed that open access to laparoscopic sterilisation reduced waiting times, had very high attrition (87%); the other RCT showed that open access to investigative services reduced waiting times (30%) for participants with lower urinary tract syndrome (LUTS) but had no effect on waiting times for participants with microscopic haematuria. In one ITS study, same-day scheduling for paediatric health clinic appointments reduced waiting times (direct reduction of 25.2 days, and thereafter a decrease of 3.03 days per month), while another ITS study showed no effect of a direct booking system on proportions of participants receiving a colposcopy appointment within the recommended time. One RCT and one ITS showed no effect of distant consultancy (instant photography for dermatological conditions and telemedicine for ear nose throat (ENT) conditions) on waiting times; another ITS study showed no effect of a pooled waiting list on the number of participants waiting for uncomplicated spinal surgery.Overall quality of the evidence for all outcomes, assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool, ranged from low to very low.We found no studies evaluating interventions to increase capacity or to ration demand.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As only a handful of low-quality studies are presently available, we cannot draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of the evaluated interventions in reducing waiting times. However, interventions involving the provision of more accessible services (open access or direct booking/referral) show some promise.

Factors influencing the adoption and implementation of teledentistry in the UK, with a focus on orthodontics

OBJECTIVES

Utilizing Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory, this study aims to develop a better understanding of the challenges faced in teledental projects, and outline the factors that impact upon the adoption and implementation of teledental projects, with a focus on orthodontics, thus attempting to provide an explanation for the low uptake in the UK, as well as to suggest factors to encourage success.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out to obtain information concerning teledentistry (and telemedicine) from both primary and secondary research sources. Using the relevant information obtained, Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory was used as a framework, which was subsequently applied to the key stakeholder groups of a healthcare organization.

RESULTS

The model describes five characteristics of an innovation: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. These attributes are discussed in the context of key stakeholder groups within a healthcare organization: clinicians, patients, hospital managers, and healthcare decision-makers and funders. Each stakeholder group is motivated by different values and experiences, which in turn influence their decision to adopt a new technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing teledental applications necessitates full comprehension and consideration of the healthcare environment and also a commitment to completely integrate teledentistry within that environment. This is a process that demands strategic alignment with clinical and organizational goals, clinical engagement and strong political support. The challenges within each stakeholder group must be specifically targeted.

Do triage systems in healthcare improve patient flow? A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

Triage processes are often used by Emergency Departments to sort patients according to urgency or type of service required. Triage may also be used in a broad spectrum of other health services and not just emergency departments. Triage systems may be used to ensure the most urgent patients get timely service, but do they have an effect on patient flow?

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review by searching five electronic databases (until August 2009) combining the elements 'triage' and 'patient flow', complemented by hand searching reference lists and citation tracking. We identified and assessed the quality of 25 articles that met inclusion criteria. Population, setting, design and results were extracted and a process of descriptive synthesis applied. Effect sizes for waiting time were compared for seven studies in which sufficient data could be extracted.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Moderate evidence exists from a range of health services that the ability to combine triage and initial treatment in less resource intensive cases can have a positive effect on patient flow. There is conflicting evidence that triage systems that only prioritize patients, without providing any treatment, improve overall patient flow, although tailoring triage criteria more specifically to the patient population or using triage to prioritize treatable cases may be of benefit.

Triaging referrals as part of hematology/oncology fellowship training

We developed an integrative component of the consult rotation for fellows training in hematology/oncology. This component consisted of triaging all consults to the hematology/oncology service of the CAVHS during a 1-year period of time. The goals of the rotation were to improve timeliness of response to consultation requests, to gain experience in differential diagnosis of patients with potential hematologic/oncologic disorders through of such patients, review of decisions with attending physicians, and communication of such with the referring physician. The major benefits were that fellows integrated didactic learning into real-life clinical cases, selected patients for their continuity clinic to assure sufficient variety and complexity of cases, honed their communication skills, learned about referring and attending physicians' styles, and gained practice in clinical vignettes representative of cases they would be expected to see in clinical practice. Disadvantages were time involvement (approximately 2 h/day) and risks of over- or under-referrals. Administratively, there was a significant decline in the wait time for patients to be seen in the hematology/oncology service. In all, this elective is a valuable integrative experience of senior fellows, but may have less value for first year fellows.