Patient Safety Incidents and Adverse Events in Ambulatory Dental Care: A Systematic Scoping Review

Patient safety climate research in primary care dentistry: A systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient safety climate constitutes an important element for quality improvement. Its current evidence base has been generated in hospital settings in developed countries. Studies in dentistry are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically explore the evidence regarding assessing patient safety climate in dentistry.

METHODS

We developed a search strategy to explore MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases from January 1st, 2002, to December 31st, 2022, to include observational studies on patient safety culture or patient safety climate assessment. Methodological features and item data concerning the dimensions employed for assessment were extracted and thematically analyzed. Reported scores were also collected.

RESULTS

Nine articles out of 5584 were included in this study. Most studies were generated from high-income economies. Our analysis revealed methodological variations. Non-randomized samples were employed (ranging from 139 to 656 participants), and response rates varied from 28% to 93.7%. Three types of measurement instruments have been adapted to assess patient safety climate. These mainly consisted of replacing words or rewording sentences. Only one study employed an instrument previously validated through psychometric methods. In general, patient safety climate levels were either low or neutral. Only one study reported scores equal to or greater than 75.

DISCUSSION

Despite diverse assessment tools, our two-decade analysis reveals a lag compared with medicine, resulting in methodological variations for assessing patient safety climate. Collaboration is vital to elevate standards, prioritize patient safety across oral healthcare services, and advocate for integrating safety climate into local and national quality and patient safety strategies.

Comparison of physicians' and dentists' incident reports in open data from the Japan Council for Quality Health Care: a mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

Patient safety is associated with patient outcomes. However, there is insufficient evidence of patient safety in the dental field. This study aimed to compare incidents reported by dentists and physicians, compare the type of errors made by them, and identify how dentists prevent dental errors.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was conducted using open data from the Japan Council for Quality Health Care database. A total of 6071 incident reports submitted for the period 2016-2020 were analyzed; the number of dentists' incident reports was 144, and the number of physicians' incident reports was 5927.

RESULTS

The percentage of dental intern reporters was higher than that of medical intern reporters (dentists: n = 12, 8.3%; physicians: n = 180, 3.0%; p = 0.002). The percentage of reports by dentists was greater than that by physicians: wrong part of body treated (dentists: n = 26, 18.1%; physicians: n = 120, 2.0%; p < 0.001), leaving foreign matter in the body (dentists: n = 15, 10.4%; physicians: n = 182, 3.1%; p < 0.001), and accidental ingestion (dentists: n = 8, 5.6%; physicians: n = 8, 0.1%; p < 0.001), and aspiration of foreign body (dentists: n = 5, 3.4%; physicians: n = 33, 0.6%; p = 0.002). The percentage of each type of prevention method utilized was as follows: software 27.8% (n = 292), hardware (e.g., developing a new system) 2.1% (n = 22), environment (e.g., coordinating the activities of staff) 4.2% (n = 44), liveware (e.g., reviewing procedure, double checking, evaluating judgement calls made) 51.6% (n = 542), and liveware-liveware (e.g., developing adequate treatment plans, conducting appropriate postoperative evaluations, selecting appropriate equipment and adequately trained medical staff) 14.3% (n = 150).

CONCLUSION

Hardware and software and environment components accounted for a small percentage of the errors made, while the components of liveware and liveware-liveware errors were larger. Human error cannot be prevented by individual efforts alone; thus, a systematic and holistic approach needs to be developed by the medical community.

High-reliability organisation principles implemented in dentistry

Introduction/objectives Successful dentistry inherently requires high-reliability and situational awareness to provide consistent high-quality care. However, treatment errors still occur in dentistry as they do in medicine. The importance of avoiding error is elevated for dentistry due to the increased frequency of irreversible procedures in each patient interaction compared to non-surgical specialties in medicine. Although a universal protocol for time-out exists, wrong-site procedures are a persistent healthcare issue in dentistry.Data By implementing high-reliability organisations (HROs) principles to dentistry, improved safety and quality can be achieved.Sources There are five essential principles that HROs have been observed to adhere to: preoccupation with failure; situational awareness/sensitivity to operations; a reluctance to simplify; deference to expertise; and commitment to resilience. Deep examination of the potential vulnerabilities in dentistry, using HRO ideology will create effective process improvement strategies. It fosters a culture of accountability using systematic problem-solving as opposed to condemnation.Study selection Implementation of HRO principles will improve the existing universal time-out process, while placing quality and performance at the central focus of strategic success.Conclusions Dentists can adopt these HRO principles into their practices to create effective process improvement strategies.

Foreign body aspiration and ingestion in dental clinic: a seven-year retrospective study

Background

This retrospective study investigated the incidence rate of accidental foreign body aspiration and ingestion according to patient sex, age, and dental department. This study aimed to verify whether the incidence rate is higher in geriatric than in younger patients and whether it is different among dental departments.

Methods

Accidental foreign body aspiration and ingestion cases were collected from electronic health records and the safety report system of Yonsei University Dental Hospital from January 2011 to December 2017. The collected data included patients’ age, sex, medical conditions, treatment procedures, and foreign objects that were accidentally aspirated or ingested. The incidence rate was calculated as the number of accidental foreign body aspirations and ingestions relative to the total number of patient visits. Differences depending on the patients’ sex, age, and dental department were statistically identified.

Results

There were 2 aspiration and 37 ingestion cases during the 7-year analysis period. The male to female incidence ratio was 2.8:1. The incidence rate increased with age and increased rapidly among those aged 80 years or older. Seven of the 37 patients with accidental foreign body ingestion had intellectual disability, Lou Gehrig’s disease, dystonia, or oral and maxillofacial cancer. The incidence rate was highest in the Predoctoral Student Clinic and the Department of Prosthodontics. The most frequently swallowed objects were fixed dental prostheses and dental implant components.

Conclusion

The incidence rate of accidental foreign body aspiration and ingestion differed according to patient sex, age, and dental department. Dental practitioners must identify high-risk patients and apply various methods to prevent accidental foreign body aspiration and ingestion in dental clinics. Inexperienced practitioners should be particularly careful.

Dental Patient Safety in the Military Health System: Joining Medicine in the Journey to High Reliability

INTRODUCTION

Delivering consistent high quality care in a safe environment is the goal of the modern dental delivery system. Preventable adverse events, however, are still commonplace in dentistry. As has been demonstrated in the medical field, a concerted and persistent effort will be required to objectively understand and begin to eliminate the sources of dental error. In civilian dental practice this effort is hampered by the underreporting of patient safety events in comparison to the medical field. Patient safety reporting in the Military Health System (MHS) is robust and includes dentistry. This provides an important opportunity to analyze these data as the foundation for improvements in dental care and the elimination of preventable harm. The purpose of this article is to review MHS dental patient safety data, identify the primary sources of dental error and describe current initiatives based on the adoption of the High Reliability Organization (HRO) model of care that has been profitably embraced by the medical community.

METHODS

Dental patient safety report data from the Defense Health Agency Patient Safety Analysis Center (PSAC) for the period 2013-2016 were analyzed to determine the type, incidence, contributing factors, setting and trends for dental errors occurring within the MHS. Comparison to medical data was also performed.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2016, there was a 32.1% increase in dental patient safety reports in the MHS. For this period, dentistry accounted for the highest number of Sentinel Events (SEs) compared to other clinical specialties and accounted for 32.7% of all SEs for the period. From 2013 to 2016, there was a five-fold increase in reported dental SEs. Wrong-Site Surgeries (WSS) comprised the highest proportion of SEs followed by intraoperative or immediate post-operative/post-procedure or surgery issues (63% and 14%, respectively). Within the WSS category, wrong-site anesthesia and wrong-tooth treated were the two largest sub-categories (40% and 32%, respectively). The data reviewed are not rates and do not take into account the total number of procedures performed by dentistry in comparison to medicine. Root cause analysis identified communication failures and inconsistent adoption of the Universal Protocol as the leading contributing factors for WSSs.

CONCLUSION

Safety initiatives in the dental profession remain immature in comparison to the medical field and the use of an HRO framework is just beginning to emerge in dentistry. The MHS benefits from a robust dental patient safety reporting system when compared to civilian practice in the United States. Review of these data demonstrates that a high priority focus should be the elimination of WSS. Initiatives based on high reliability strategies to address this issue will be discussed. A commitment to reporting and analyzing its performance and adopting the principles and behaviors of HROs will accelerate the MHS goal of providing ever increasing safety and quality in the dental care it provides.

Patient safety in dental care: an integrative review

Adverse events pose a serious problem for quality of healthcare. Dental practice is eminently invasive and involves close and routine contact with secretions; as such, it is potentially prone to the occurrence of adverse events. Various patient safety studies have been developed in the last two decades, but mostly in the hospital setting due to the organizational complexity, severity of the cases, and diversity and specificity of the procedures. The objective was to identify and explore studies on patient safety in Dentistry. An integrative literature review was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus via Portal Capes, and the Regional Portal of the Virtual Health Library, using the terms patient safety and dentistry in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, starting in 2000. The research cycle in patient safety was used, as proposed by the World Health Organization to classify studies. We analyzed 91 articles. The most common adverse events were allergies, infections, diagnostic delay or failure, and technical error. Measures to mitigate the problem highlight the need to improve communications, encourage reporting, and search for tools to assist the management of care. The authors found a lack of studies on implementation and assessment of the impact of proposals for improvement. Dentistry has made progress in patient safety but still needs to transpose the results into practice, where efforts are crucial to prevent adverse events.

Development of a Checklist to Prevent Reconstructive Errors Made By Undergraduate Dental Students

PURPOSE

To design a checklist in order to reduce the frequency of reconstructive preventable errors (PE) performed by undergraduate dental students at McGill University.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The most common PE occurring at a university dental clinic were identified by three reviewers analyzing the refunded cases, and used to create a preliminary checklist. This checklist was then validated by a panel of dental educators to produce a finalized 20-item checklist. The 20-question checklist was then submitted to students in a cross-sectional survey-based study to evaluate its relevance to undergraduate clinical education needs.

RESULTS

As many as 81% of students reported to have forgotten at least one item of the checklist during care of their last patient, and the most forgotten checklist items corresponded to the pretreatment stage. The students also reported that 17 of the 20 items in the checklist were relevant to a considerable extent or highly relevant.

CONCLUSION

Common PE identified in the undergraduate clinic could be used to create a checklist of relevant items designed to reduce errors made by students and practitioners performing prosthodontic and reconstructive treatments. However, further studies are required to evaluate the implementation and efficiency of the checklist.

Frequency and nature of potentially harmful preventable problems in primary care from the patient's perspective with clinician review: a population-level survey in Great Britain

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the frequency of patient-perceived potentially harmful problems occurring in primary care. To describe the type of problem, patient predictors of perceiving a problem, the primary care service involved, how the problem was discussed and patient suggestions as to how the problem might have been prevented. To describe clinician/public opinions regarding the likelihood that the patient-described scenario is potentially harmful.

DESIGN

Population-level survey.

SETTING

Great Britain.

PARTICIPANTS

A nationally representative sample of 3975 members of the public aged ≥15 years interviewed during April 2016.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Counts of patient-perceived potentially harmful problems in the last 12 months, descriptions of patient-described scenarios and review by clinicians/members of the public.

RESULTS

3975 of 3996 participants in a nationally representative survey completed the relevant questions (99.5%). 300 (7.6%; 95% CI 6.7% to 8.4%) of respondents reported experiencing a potentially harmful preventable problem in primary care during the past 12 months and 145 (48%) discussed their concerns within primary care. This did not vary with age, gender or type of service used. A substantial minority (30%) of the patient-perceived problems occurred outside general practice, particularly the dental surgery, walk in clinic, out of hours care and pharmacy. Patients perceiving a potentially harmful preventable problem were eight times more likely to have 'no confidence and trust in primary care' compared with 'yes, definitely' (OR 7.9; 95% CI 5.9 to 10.7) but those who discussed their perceived-problem appeared to maintain higher trust and confidence. Generally, clinicians ranked the patient-described scenarios as unlikely to be potentially harmful.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of actively soliciting patient's views about preventable harm in primary care as patients frequently perceive potentially harmful preventable problems and make useful suggestions for their prevention. Such engagement may also help to improve confidence and trust in primary care.