Dental Quality Measurement--A Practitioner Perspective.

This article reviews the HealthPartners Dental Group's experience with clinical quality measurement and provides information on the administrative infrastructure that supports measurement within the group. Some examples of the role measurement plays in operations and clinical practice are also reviewed.

Measuring quality of dental care during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The authors aimed to develop and validate 2 Dental Quality Alliance measures of dental care access during pregnancy (Utilization of Services During Pregnancy, Oral Evaluation During Pregnancy) using claims and enrollment data and to report performance on these measures for a sample of Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program beneficiaries. METHODS: The authors used Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System enrollment and claims data for 7,767,806 people enrolled in 5 state Medicaid programs and Children's Health Insurance Programs during 2018. The authors used split-half reliability testing to assess measure reliability. The authors calculated 95% CIs to assess statistically significant variation in performance between programs. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient used to assess agreement between the split samples was 0.992 (95% CI, 0.941 to 0.999; P < .0001) for Utilization of Services During Pregnancy and 0.983 (95% CI, 0.879 to 0.998; P < .0001) for Oral Evaluation During Pregnancy. Performance scores ranged from 20% through 34% of beneficiaries receiving any dental service during pregnancy (Utilization of Services During Pregnancy) and from 14% through 23% of beneficiaries receiving a periodic or comprehensive oral evaluation during pregnancy (Oral Evaluation During Pregnancy), with statistically significant differences between programs. CONCLUSIONS: The measures reliably assessed access to dental services and can distinguish performance between programs. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: These measures can be used to advance population health by means of supporting national efforts to improve access to dental care during pregnancy.

Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: findings from the dental PBRN.

Rubber dam use during operative dentistry procedures has been quantified based on questionnaires completed by dentists. However, based on the knowledge of the authors of the current study, there are no reports based on use during actual clinical procedures other than in dental materials studies and none based on routine care. The objectives of the current study were to: 1) quantify how commonly the rubber dam is used during operative dentistry procedures; 2) test the hypothesis that certain dentist, restoration and patient-level factors are associated with its use. A total of 229 dentist practitioner-investigators in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) participated. DPBRN comprises 5 regions: Alabama/Mississippi, Florida/Georgia, Minnesota, Permanente Dental Associates; and Scandinavia. Practitioner-investigators collected data on 9,890 consecutive restorations done in previously unrestored tooth surfaces from 5,810 patients. Most dentists (63%) did not use a rubber dam for any restoration in this study. A rubber dam was used for only 12% of restorations, 83% of which were used in 1 DPBRN region. With regions accounted for, no other dentist characteristics were significant. A multi-level multiple logistic regression of rubber dam use was done with restoration and patient-level variables modeled simultaneously. In this multi-variable context, these restoration-level characteristics were statistically significant: tooth-arch type, restoration classification and reason for placing the restoration. These patient-level characteristics were statistically significant: ethnicity, dental insurance, and age. These results, obtained fromactual clinical procedures rather than questionnaires, document a low prevalence of usage of the rubber dam during operative dentistry procedures. Usage varied with certain dentist, restoration, and patient level characteristics.

Testing dental quality measures: Emergency department visits for nontraumatic dental conditions and subsequent follow-up dental visits.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to test the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Dental Quality Alliance's adult dental quality measures for system-level implementation for ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) emergency department (ED) visits for nontraumatic dental conditions (NTDCs) in adults and follow-up after ED visits for NTDCs in adults. METHODS: Medicaid enrollment and claims data from Oregon and Iowa were used for measure testing. Testing included validation of diagnosis codes in claims data through patient record reviews of ED visits and calculations of κ statistic, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Adult Medicaid enrollees' ACS NTDC ED visits ranged from 209 through 310 per 100,000 member-months. In both states, patients in the age category 25 through 34 years and non-Hispanic Black patients had the highest rates of ACS ED visits for NTDCs. Only one-third of all ED visits were associated with a follow-up dental visit within 30 days, decreasing to approximately one-fifth with a 7-day follow-up. The agreement between the claims data and patient records for identification of ACS ED visits for NTDCs was 93%, κ statistic was 0.85, sensitivity was 92%, and specificity was 94%. CONCLUSIONS: Testing revealed the feasibility, reliability, and validity of 2 DQA quality measures. Most beneficiaries did not have a follow-up with a dentist within 30 days of an ED visit. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Adoption of quality measures by state Medicaid programs and other integrated care systems will enable active tracking of beneficiaries with ED visits for NTDCs and develop strategies to connect them to dental homes.

Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: findings from the Dental PBRN.

Rubber dam use during operative dentistry procedures has been quantified based on questionnaires completed by dentists. However, based on the knowledge of the authors of the current study, there are no reports based on use during actual clinical procedures other than in dental materials studies and none based on routine care. The objectives of the current study were to: 1) quantify how commonly the rubber dam is used during operative dentistry procedures; 2) test the hypothesis that certain dentist, restoration and patient-level factors are associated with its use. A total of 229 dentist practitioner-investigators in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) participated. DPBRN comprises five regions of the USA: Alabama/Mississippi, Florida/Georgia, Minnesota, Permanente Dental Associates and Scandinavia. Practitioner-investigators collected data on 9,890 consecutive restorations done in previously unrestored tooth surfaces from 5,810 patients. Most dentists (63%) did not use a rubber dam for any restoration in this study. A rubber dam was used for only 12% of restorations, 83% of which were used in one DPBRN region. With regions accounted for, no other dentist characteristics were significant. A multi-level multiple logistic regression of rubber dam use was done with restoration and patient-level variables modeled simultaneously. In this multi-variable context, these restoration-level characteristics were statistically significant: tooth-arch type, restoration classification and reason for placing the restoration. These patient-level characteristics were statistically significant: ethnicity, dental insurance and age. These results, obtained from actual clinical procedures rather than questionnaires, document a low prevalence of usage of the rubber dam during operative dentistry procedures. Usage varied with certain dentist, restoration and patient-level characteristics.

Advancing value in oral health through meaningful measurement.

Central to all value-based purchasing (VBP) approaches are value metrics, the measurements used to drive improvement, facilitate payment, and evaluate results of VBP programs. This article outlines approaches for adopting meaningful measurement systems that can be used to support VBP in the near term and identifies systemic changes critical to developing more robust measurement systems to advance VBP in the future.

Feasibility and usability of measuring receipt of sealants in 2 states.

BACKGROUND: The authors examined the reliability and validity of the Dental Quality Alliance childhood sealant measure under actual use conditions in Texas and Florida. The 2 states provide care for almost 20% of children in Medicaid nationally. METHODS: The authors used dental claims data to examine the reliability of the caries risk assessment component of the measure. They examined validity using a 3-year look-back period to identify children who were inaccurately included in the measure denominator as sealant eligible when they were not owing to already sealed, missing, or restored teeth. RESULTS: The children identified at elevated risk varied between the states, with 85% at elevated risk in Texas and 39% in Florida in 2017. Different methods can be used to calculate risk, raising questions about reliability. In Texas, 31% of children included in the denominator were not eligible to receive sealants owing to already sealed, missing, or restored teeth. The magnitude of the underestimation increased with age, so by the time children were 9 years old, 40% were not measure eligible yet included in the denominator. Similar results were observed for Florida. CONCLUSIONS: The authors propose eliminating the caries risk assessment requirement and incorporating a 3-year look-back period to identify already sealed, missing, or restored molars. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The reliability and validity of the sealant measure needs to be enhanced. Measure misspecification in which children are not correctly identified as needing sealants can contribute to inaccurate development of quality improvement goals, performance improvement projects, or pay-for-quality programs.

Preferences for caries prevention agents in adult patients: findings from the dental practice-based research network.

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that are significantly associated with dentists' use of specific caries preventive agents in adult patients, and whether dentists who use one preventive agent are also more likely to use certain others. METHODS: Data were collected from 564 practitioners in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network, a multi-region consortium of participating practices and dental organizations. RESULTS: In-office topical fluoride was the method most frequently used. Regarding at-home preventive agents, there was little difference in preference between nonprescription fluoride, prescription fluoride, or chlorhexidine rinse. Dentists who most frequently used caries prevention were also those who regularly perform caries risk assessment and individualize caries prevention at the patient level. Higher percentages of patients with dental insurance were significantly associated with more use of in-office prevention modalities. Female dentists and dentists with more-recent training were more likely to recommend preventive agents that are applied by the patient. Dentists who reported more-conservative decisions in clinical treatment scenarios were also more likely to use caries preventive agents. Groups of dentist who shared a common preference for certain preventive agents were identified. One group used preventive agents selectively, whereas the other groups predominately used either in-office or at-home fluorides. CONCLUSIONS: Caries prevention is commonly used with adult patients. However, these results suggest that only a subset of dentists base preventive treatments on caries risk at the individual patient level.