Dentistry for patients with haemophilia: Trialling a safe and economical change in management.

INTRODUCTION: While the dental management of patients with haemophilia has changed considerably in the last decade, haemophiliacs in Western Australia have continued to receive pre-operative factor support for dentistry regardless of the type of dental procedure. AIM: To review the efficacy and safety of established dental protocols that reduce factor use in the dental management of patients with haemophilia and to estimate cost savings. METHODS: Records of 11 patients with haemophilia that were seen in the pilot programme period were reviewed. These were cross-referenced with previous dental and haematology notes that stated the amount and type of pre-operative factor used. Cost savings were estimated using the Australian National Blood Authority's Product List. RESULTS: All study participants were male, and included those with haemophilia A (n = 9), and B (n = 2). Mean age was 45 years (range 22-80). A variety of dental treatments were undertaken, and no pre-operative factor was used. Patients on prophylaxis (n = 6) received dental treatment the same day as their regular factor administration. It was estimated AUD$26,314 was saved by not using pre-operative factor. One patient had bleeding post-extraction and was seen the following day to achieve haemostasis using local measures. The remaining patients had no complaints of post-operative bleeding, and did not require any further haemostatic measures. CONCLUSION: This pilot programme supports data that haemophiliacs can safely receive a variety of dental treatments without the need for pre-operative factor, and the significant cost savings of doing so. Further data is required to support this protocol for invasive dental procedures.

Mentoring of oral health professionals is crucial to improving access to care for people with special needs.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with special health care needs continue to experience difficulties with accessing regular dental care. This has largely been due to clinicians feeling they lack the training and experience to manage their needs. The aim of this study was to determine whether working closely with specialists in special need dentistry influenced the willingness of clinicians to treat patients with special needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with specialists and clinicians involved in these mentoring initiatives. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to determine perspectives towards how this additional support influenced their willingness to treat individuals with special needs. RESULTS: The views of all participants towards these supports were positive with clinicians feeling it not only offered them opportunities to learn from the specialists, but also increased their willingness to treat individuals with special needs and the timeliness and quality of care they were able to provide. Likewise, despite some concerns about the inappropriate use of specialist support, the specialists felt these mentoring relationships offered many benefits including improving timely access to care and ensuring individuals were able to receive appropriate care. CONCLUSIONS: Mentoring provided by specialists in special needs dentistry improved the willingness of clinicians to provide care for individuals with special health care needs. Supports such as these are likely to be crucial to overcoming concerns of clinicians about their ability to manage the needs of these individuals and begin to address a significant barrier to access of care for individuals with special health care needs.

Perceived barriers encountered by oral health professionals in the Australian public dental system providing dental treatment to individuals with special needs.

AIMS: To investigate barriers experienced by clinicians treating individuals with special needs in the Australian public dental system. METHODS AND RESULTS: Oral health professionals working at primary care clinics in the public dental system were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews or focus groups to discuss the challenges they faced in managing patients with special needs. Qualitative methods, employing inductive thematic analysis, revealed two primary barriers: 1. clinicians lacked confidence in their ability to treat patients with special needs because of insufficient training and experience, and difficulties obtaining information about their patients, and 2. barriers within the public dental system, including inadequate funding, equipment and facilities, and productivity pressures prevented clinicians from being able to provide the care patients required. The priority and understanding of the oral health for these individuals within the public dental system and wider disability sector was also raised. CONCLUSION: A perceived lack of training and experience in managing individuals with special needs was a barrier to treating patients with special needs. Other significant barriers were under-resourcing of the public dental system and a lack of priority and understanding regarding oral health among carers of individuals with special needs and other health professionals.

Utilisation of dental services for people with special health care needs in Australia.

BACKGROUND: To explore the profile of patients and treatment delivered at specialist referral centres for individuals with special needs. METHODS: A cross-sectional audit was conducted of the health records of all patients with appointments at two of Australia's largest referral centres for patients with special needs, the Integrated Special Needs Department at the Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne and the Special Needs Unit at the Adelaide Dental Hospital, for the month of August 2015. RESULTS: The profile of patients treated at these specialist units demonstrates the diversity of individuals with additional health care needs that general dentists feel require specialised oral health care. The Adelaide-based clinic had a greater proportion of complex medical patients in comparison to those treated in Melbourne who were more likely to have a disability or psychiatric condition and were less likely to be able to self-consent for treatment. Interestingly, despite similar workforce personnel numbers, there were approximately twice as many appointments at the Special Needs Unit in Adelaide than the Integrated Special Needs Department in Melbourne during the study period which may have reflected differences in workforce composition with a greater use of dental auxiliaries at the Adelaide clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide an initial profile of patients with special needs referred for specialist care in Australia. However, the differences in patient profiles between the two units require further investigation into the possible influence of service provision models and barriers to access of care for individuals with special needs and to ensure equitable access to health care.

Perceptions of dental treatment need in Australian-born and migrant populations.

The objective of this study was to investigate differences in self-perceived and dentist-determined treatment need in Australian-born and migrant residents of Australia. Participants in the National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-06 were categorized into six groups according to country of birth. Interview and examination data were used to analyze differences between self-perceived and the 'gold standard' examiner-determined treatment need, and to compare the accuracy of self-reporting according to country of birth. Self-reported treatment needs, defined as the need for a restoration and/or extraction, were cross-tabulated with clinically observed conditions and compared using a multivariable logistic regression model. Concordance between self-reported and clinically-determined treatment need differed significantly for migrants from Europe and the UK and Australian-born individuals. In the logistic regression model, stratification according to examiner-determined treatment need revealed significantly greater reporting of treatment need by Asian-born migrants than by the Australian-born reference group. The results of this study demonstrate that self-perceived treatment need was less than the examiner-determined findings in European and UK migrant groups and Australian-born individuals. Additionally, Asian migrants were more likely than Australian-born individuals to over-report treatment need for a filling and/or extraction.