The views and experiences of general dental practitioners (GDP's) in West Yorkshire who used the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) in research.

OBJECTIVE: To explore, through face to face interviews with a selection of General Dental Practitioners (GDPs), their views and experiences of having used the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) within primary care research studies for recording caries. METHODS: This qualitative study involved one on one interviews with eight GDP's who had previously used ICDAS on patients in their dental practices as part of a research study. The participants were selected from among those who had taken part in two clinical studies in the UK using convenient, but purposive sampling. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed; the data analysis was conducted by thematic analysis. RESULTS: GDP's indicated their beliefs that ICDAS had an important role in caries prevention but reported four main barriers while using the full (6 caries stages) ICDAS coding system in their practices: lack of simplicity of coding, financial implications and time consumption (in both training and use of ICDAS) and inadequate undergraduate training. An overarching theme identified from the GDPS was the willingness to offer potential solutions to their barriers which might improve the utilisation of the system in primary care. CONCLUSION: The GDPs experienced common obstacles in using ICDAS in the primary care setting, many of which have relatively straight-forward solutions which they put forward themselves such as: incentivisation, undergraduate-level training in ICDAS for both dentists and nurses and computerized data entry. Further qualitative and quantitative research is needed on how to facilitate the utilisation of the system in dental practice. It is also recommended to explore the influences of wider agencies on influencing primary dental care professionals' caries management, including appropriate recording of diagnosis and risk assessment.

Variations in the provision and cost of oral healthcare in 11 European countries: a case study.

AIM: To compare the provision and costs at the point of delivery of dental treatments in a sample of European Union (EU) Member States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire with open-ended questions was sent to oral health policy-makers in Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Scotland and Spain. They were asked to answer questions on the probable costs and provision of treatment in their country for a vignette presented as a pre-defined case. RESULTS: All respondents returned answers to all questions. Wide variations were reported in: who would deliver care, cost of items of care and total cost. For example, in France, only a dentist would provide the treatment. In Denmark, England, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Scotland, it was likely that the treatment would be provided by a combination of dentist, dental hygienist and dental nurse. Fees ranged from €72 in England (if treated within the NHS) to €603 in Denmark. In Italy, Spain and for most patients in Romania, all treatment costs were paid by the patient. In the other nine countries, some subsidy from public funds was available. In terms of percentage of per capita Gross National Income, the cost to the patient ranged from 0.12% in France to 1.57% in Spain. CONCLUSIONS: It was apparent that there are wide variations between EU Member States in the manner in which oral healthcare is delivered, its cost and the extent to which the cost of treatment is subsidised from state funds or through private insurance.

The INCENTIVE protocol: an evaluation of the organisation and delivery of NHS dental healthcare to patients-innovation in the commissioning of primary dental care service delivery and organisation in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: In England, in 2006, new dental contracts devolved commissioning of dental services locally to Primary Care Trusts to meet the needs of their local population. The new national General Dental Services contracts (nGDS) were based on payment for Units of Dental Activity (UDAs) awarded in three treatment bands based on complexity of care. Recently, contract currency in UK dentistry is evolving from UDAs based on volume and case complexity towards 'blended contracts' that include incentives linked with key performance indicators such as quality and improved health outcome. Overall, evidence of the effectiveness of incentive-driven contracting of health providers is still emerging. The INCENTIVE Study aims to evaluate a blended contract model (incentive-driven) compared to traditional nGDS contracts on dental service delivery in practices in West Yorkshire, England. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The INCENTIVE model uses a mixed methods approach to comprehensively evaluate a new incentive-driven model of NHS dental service delivery. The study includes 6 dental surgeries located across three newly commissioned dental practices (blended contract) and three existing traditional practices (nGDS contracts). The newly commissioned practices have been matched to traditional practices by deprivation index, age profile, ethnicity, size of practice and taking on new patients. The study consists of three interlinked work packages: a qualitative study to explore stakeholder perspectives of the new service delivery model; an effectiveness study to assess the INCENTIVE model in reducing the risk of and amount of dental disease and enhance oral health-related quality of life in patients; and an economic study to assess cost-effectiveness of the INCENTIVE model in relation to clinical status and oral health-related quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by NRES Committee London, Bromley. The results of this study will be disseminated at national and international conferences and in international journals.

The effectiveness of nurse-led care in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of nurse-led care in rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: Systematic review of effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, HMIC, HTA, MEDLINE, NHEED, Ovid Nursing and PsycINFO) were searched from 1988 to January 2010 with no language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials, nurse-led care being part of the intervention and including patients with RA. REVIEW METHODS: Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Quality assessment was conducted independently by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool. For each outcome measure, the effect size was assessed using risk ratio or ratio of means (RoM) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) as appropriate. Where possible, data from similar outcomes were pooled in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven records representing 4 RCTs with an overall low risk of bias (good quality) were included in the review. They included 431 patients and the interventions (nurse-led care vs usual care) lasted for 1-2years. Most effect sizes of disease activity measures were inconclusive (DAS28 RoM=0.96, 95%CI [0.90-1.02], P=0.16; plasma viscosity RoM=1 95%CI [0.8-1.26], p=0.99) except the Ritchie Articular Index (RoM=0.89, 95%CI [0.84-0.95], P<0.001) which favoured nurse-led care. Results from some secondary outcomes (functional status, stiffness and coping with arthritis) were also inconclusive. Other outcomes (satisfaction and pain) displayed mixed results when assessed using different tools making them also inconclusive. Significant effects of nurse-led care were seen in quality of life (RAQoL RoM=0.83, 95%CI [0.75-0.92], P<0.001), patient knowledge (PKQ RoM=4.39, 95%CI [3.35-5.72], P<0.001) and fatigue (median difference=-330, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The estimates of the primary outcome and most secondary outcomes showed no significant difference between nurse-led care and the usual care. While few outcomes favoured nurse-led care, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether this is the case. More good quality RCTs of nurse-led care effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis are required.