Oral healthcare education of future nursing personnel and auxiliary nurses

Development of practice guidelines for daily oral care in care-dependent older adults to complement the InterRAI suite of instruments using a modified Delphi approach

Aim

To develop practice guidelines for nursing assistants who provide daily oral care to older adults.

Background

The interRAI suite of instruments is internationally used in professional health care to assess the needs of care‐dependent older persons. An optimised oral health section was developed recently to identify care clients with poor oral health and hygiene. Internationally shared guidelines for daily oral care are needed to complement the optimised oral health section of the interRAI suite of instruments.

Material and methods

The modified Delphi approach started with the preparation of an initial draft. Subsequently, an online survey and a face‐to‐face discussion were conducted with international experts. Their feedback was used to revise the draft. Two additional online surveys were conducted with the experts to reach consensus agreement for each item of the revised version. The same group of experts was invited to the different study phases.

Results

The three surveys were completed by 26, 27 and 23 international experts, respectively. A group of 18 experts completed each survey, whereof a subgroup of 11 experts also took part in the face‐to‐face discussion. Experts were dental hygienists, dentists, nursing scientists, physicians and psychologists from 14 different countries. After the final survey, consensus agreement was reached for 54 of the 57 (94.7%) items, representing the final version of the guidelines.

Conclusion

Available evidence was combined with practical feedback from international experts to develop clear and concise practice guidelines for daily oral care in older adults.

Implications for practice

The guidelines will help to improve knowledge and reduce barriers of nursing assistants to provide daily oral care.

Assessment of oral health conditions presented in photographs - is there a difference between dentists and non-dental professional caregivers?

Background

Photographs can help non-dental professional caregivers to identify problems when inspecting the mouth of care-dependent older individuals. This study evaluated whether the assessment of oral health-related conditions presented in photographs differed between dentists and non-dental professional caregivers.

Materials and methods

One-hundred-and-seventy-nine photographs were taken from long-term care facility residents and from patients at the Department of Dentistry of a University Hospital. The following oral health aspects were depicted: denture hygiene, oral hygiene, teeth, gums, tongue and palate/lips/cheeks. Collection continued until for each oral health aspect a pool of photographs was available that showed conditions from perfect health and hygiene to severe problems. A segmented Visual Analogue Scale was applied to assess the conditions presented in the photographs. Each photograph was assessed by each participant of this study. The benchmark was established by three dentists with academic-clinical expertise in gerodontology, special needs dentistry and periodontology. For each photograph, they provided a collective score after reaching consensus. Photographs were assessed individually by 32 general dentists and by 164 non-dental professional caregivers. Linear mixed effects models and generalized linear mixed effects models were fitted and mean squared errors were computed to quantify differences between both groups.

Results

For the different oral health aspects, absolute distances from the benchmark scores were 1.13 (95%CI:1.03–1.23) to 1.51 (95%CI:1.39–1.65) times higher for the caregivers than for the dentists. The odds to overestimate the condition were higher for the caregivers than the dentists for oral hygiene (OR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.62–0.84) and teeth (OR = 0.74; 95%CI = 0.61–0.88). The odds to underestimate the condition were higher for the caregivers than the dentists for gums (OR = 1.39; 95%CI:1.22–1.59) and palate/lips/cheeks (OR = 1.22; 95%CI = 1.07–1.40). Over all assessments, the variance in caregiver scores was 1.9 (95%CI:1.62–2.23) times higher than that for the dentists.

Conclusion

Small but significant differences were found between dentists and non-dental professional caregivers assessing oral health-related conditions presented in photographs. When photographs are used to aid non-dental professional caregivers with the oral health assessment, these visualizations should be complemented with comments to facilitate accurate interpretation.

Oral health and dental care of older persons-A systematic map of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

To examine the current knowledge on oral health status and dental care of older persons through a systematic mapping of systematic reviews of low or moderate risk of bias.

BACKGROUND

Geriatric dentistry covers all aspects of oral health and oral care of older persons. Oral health is part of general health and contributes to a person's physical, psychological and social wellbeing.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in three different databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Cinahl) within 12 domains: Dental caries, periodontitis, Orofacial pain and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pain, mucosal lesions, oral motor function, dry mouth, halitosis, interaction between oral status and other medical conditions, ability to interrelate and communicate, quality of life, ethics and organisation of dental care for older persons. Systematic reviews were identified and scrutinised, highlighting scientific knowledge and knowledge gaps.

RESULTS

We included 32 systematic reviews of which 14 were judged to be of low/moderate risk of bias. Most of the domains lack systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias. In two of the domains evidence was identified; in institutionalised people aged 65 or older, effective oral hygiene can prevent pneumonia. Furthermore, there is an evidence of a relationship between malnutrition (protein energy-related malnutrition, PEM) and poor appetite and edentulousness.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need for further research and evidence-based knowledge within most domains in geriatric dentistry and in other fields related to oral health and dental care for older persons striving for multi-disciplinary research programmes.

Dental hygiene registration: development, and reliability and validity testing of an assessment scale designed for nurses in institutions

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To develop and test the dental hygiene registration, a dental hygiene assessment scale for nurses working in institutions.

BACKGROUND

Removal of dental plaque is a key factor in preventing oral health-related diseases. A simple, but reliable dental hygiene assessment scale that enables nurses to monitor residents' dental hygiene on a daily basis, will improve monitoring oral hygiene status and quality of dental health care.

DESIGN

Descriptive study on the development and evaluation of a dental hygiene registration instrument.

METHODS

The dental hygiene registration was developed and tested over several stages during the period of 2011-2014. Dental hygiene registration consists of a five-point plaque score scale. The score indicates whether measures are needed. A reference group comprising both medical and dental personnel designed dental hygiene registration. Dental plaque was used as a measure of dental hygiene. A pictorial series of teeth with varying amounts of plaque was used to achieve intra-examiner agreement. Dental hygiene registration assessments were scored 50 times to assess interexaminer reliability between one dental hygienist and one clinical nurse. Dental hygiene registration was validated against the plaque index score of the Simplified Oral Hygiene Index. The Regional Ethics Committee approved the study (2011/915).

RESULTS

Estimates for intra-examiner agreement on plaque score were good for the dental hygienist (κ = 0·7) and very good for the clinical nurse (κ = 0·8). Estimates for interexaminer reliability for dental hygiene registration between the dental hygienist and the clinical nurse were moderate (κ = 0·4). dental hygiene registration corresponded significantly with Simplified Oral Hygiene Index (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0·8, p < 0·001) indicating good validity.

CONCLUSION

The developed dental hygiene registration appears to be reliable and valid.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Dental hygiene registration may contribute to the provision of daily oral care. Dental hygiene registration enables nurses to evaluate their own effort when assisting in dental hygiene and to register whether further effort is needed.