The role of the general dental practitioner in managing the oral care of head and neck oncology patients.

UNLABELLED: The general dental practitioner (GDP) plays a critical role in managing head and neck cancer patients. The first and most important role is to offer preventive services, particularly to smokers and to patients who drink alcohol to excess. It is of critical importance that every patient has a systematic examination of oral soft tissues when seen by a GDP. All patients with suspicious lesions should be referred for urgent attention to a specialist centre. Once oral cancer has been diagnosed, GDPs may be presented with patients requiring urgent dentistry, including extractions before commencement of treatment, requiring palliation of symptoms during treatment, or requiring general dentistry after treatment. Radiotherapy provides increased survival but has serious adverse consequences, which may be lifelong, including dry mouth, radiation caries, limitation of mouth opening and high risk of osteonecrosis after extractions. Extraction of teeth in irradiated bone should be referred to specialist centres. Improving survival rates and an ageing population mean that GDPs will see many more survivors of head and neck cancer in the future, with an increased burden of dental care in the longer-term and an increased need for monitoring and secondary prevention. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The management of patients with head and neck cancer is complex and involves a multi-disciplinary team, both in the primary treatment but also in the long-term care. This paper reviews the consequences of treatment for head and neck cancer and gives practical advice for GDPs and their team in the long-term care of these patients.

Emergency department utilization after the implementation of Massachusetts health reform.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Health care reform in Massachusetts improved access to health insurance, but the extent to which reform affected utilization of the emergency department (ED) for conditions potentially amenable to primary care is unclear. Our objective is to determine the relationship between health reform and ED use for low-severity conditions. METHODS: We studied ED visits, using a convenience sample of 11 Massachusetts hospitals for identical 9-month periods before and after health care reform legislation was implemented in 2006. Individuals most affected by the health reform law (the uninsured and low-income populations covered by the publicly subsidized insurance products) were compared with individuals unlikely to be affected by the legislation (those with Medicare or private insurance). Our main outcome measure was the rate of overall and low-severity ED visits for the study population and the comparison population during the period before and after health reform implementation. RESULTS: Total visits increased from 424,878 in 2006 to 442,102 in 2008. Low-severity visits among publicly subsidized or uninsured patients decreased from 43.8% to 41.2% of total visits for that group (difference=2.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.25% to 2.85%), whereas low-severity visits for privately insured and Medicare patients decreased from 35.7% to 34.9% of total visits for that group (difference=0.8%; 95% CI 0.62% to 0.98%), for a difference in differences of 1.8% (95% CI 1.7% to 1.9%). CONCLUSION: Although overall ED volume continues to increase, Massachusetts health reform was associated with a small but statistically significant decrease in the rate of low-severity visits for those populations most affected by health reform compared with a comparison population of individuals less likely to be affected by the reform. Our findings suggest that access to health insurance is only one of a multitude of factors affecting utilization of the ED.