Clinicians' management strategies for patients with dyspepsia: a qualitative approach

Different treatment strategies are applied to patients with the same periodontal status in general dentistry

OBJECTIVE

To analyse how general dental practitioners (GDPs) and dental hygienists judge and plan to treat patients with different periodontal conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-seven GDPs and 50 dental hygienists in a Swedish county, Halland, participated in a questionnaire study. The response rate was 94%. The questionnaire consisted of four simulated patient cases and an attached answer sheet. The patient cases had different periodontal status, ranging from healthy to moderate bone loss with general inflammation. The clinicians judged the periodontal status as healthy or diseased. If judged as diseased the clinicians suggested a diagnosis, selected treatment options and estimated the number of treatment sessions for each patient case. The clinicians were compared to each other regarding their judgement, as healthy or diseased, diagnostics and treatment.

RESULTS

Three out of four patients were judged both as healthy and diseased by different clinicians. If judged as diseased the patients were diagnosed as having gingivitis or periodontitis. Regardless of the clinicians' former judgement and diagnostics there were no differences (p > 0.05) in the selected treatment options but there was a difference (p < 0.05) in the suggested number of treatment sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians' judgement of the same periodontal condition, as healthy or diseased, varies, which partly results in different treatment decisions considering the number of treatment sessions. The suggested number of treatment sessions varied also between clinicians even if they judged and diagnosed the condition likewise. The willingness to treat and suggested treatment options were not influenced by the variation in judgement and diagnostics.

How confident are general dental practitioners in their decision to administer antibiotic prophylaxis? A questionnaire study

Background

Common dental procedures induce bacteremia. To prevent infectious complications from bacteremia in patients with specific medical conditions, antibiotic prophylaxis is considered. Recommendations are often unclear and ambiguous. In a previous study we reported wide variations in general dental practitioners' (GDPs') administrations of antibiotic prophylaxis. We hypothesized that within such a conflicting clinical area, decisions are made with a high level of personal uncertainty. This study examined GDPs' confidence in their decisions and analyzed the extent to which case-related factors might explain individual variations in confidence.

Methods

Postal questionnaires in combination with telephone interviews were used. The response rate was 51% (101/200). There were no significant differences between respondents and non-respondents regarding sex, age, or place of work. The GDPs were presented to patient cases of different medical conditions, where some should receive antibiotic prophylaxis according to recommendations when performing dental procedures that could cause gingival bleeding. The GDPs assessed on visual analogue scales how confident they were in their decisions. The extent to which case-related factors, medical condition and dental procedure, could explain individual variation in confidence was analyzed.

Results

Overall the GDPs exhibited high confidence in their decisions regardless of whether they administered antibiotic prophylaxis or not, or whether their decisions were in accordance with recommendations or not. The case-related factors could explain between 30–100% of the individual variation in GDPs' confidence. For 46%, the medical condition significantly explained the individual variation in confidence. However, for most of these GDPs, lower confidence was not presented for conditions where recommendations are unclear and higher confidence was not presented for conditions where recommendations are more clear. For 8% the dental procedure significantly explained the variation, although all procedures could cause bacteremia. For 46% neither the medical condition nor the dental procedure could significantly explain the individual variation in confidence.

Conclusion

The GDPs presented high confidence in their decisions, and the majority of GDPs did not present what could be considered a justified varied level of confidence according to the clarity of recommendations. Clinicians who are overconfident in their decisions may be less susceptible to modifications of their behavior to more evidence-based strategies.