RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In many dental settings, diagnosis and treatment planning is the responsibility of a single clinician, and this process is inevitably influenced by the clinician's own heuristics and biases. Our aim was to test whether collective intelligence increases the accuracy of individual diagnoses and treatment plans, and whether such systems have potential to improve patient outcomes in a dental setting. METHODS: This pilot project was carried out to assess the feasibility of the protocol and appropriateness of the study design. We used a questionnaire survey and pre-post study design in which dental practitioners were involved in the diagnosis and treatment planning of two simulated cases. Participants were provided the opportunity to amend their original diagnosis/treatment decisions after viewing a consensus report made to simulate a collaborative setting. RESULTS: Around half (55%, n = 17) of the respondents worked in group private practices, however most practitioners (74%, n = 23) did not collaborate when planning treatment. Overall, the average practitioners' self-confidence score in managing different dental disciplines was 7.22 (s.d. 2.20) on a 1-10 scale. Practitioners tended to change their mind after viewing the consensus response, particularly for the complex case compared to the simple case (61.5% vs 38.5%, respectively). Practitioners' confidence ratings were also significantly higher (p < 0.05) after viewing the consensus for complex case. CONCLUSION: Our pilot study shows that collective intelligence in the form of peers' opinion can lead to modifications in diagnosis and treatment planning by dentists. Our results lay the foundations for larger scale investigations on whether peer collaboration can improve diagnostic accuracy, treatment planning and, ultimately, oral health outcomes.