Improvement of dental prescribing practices using education and a prescribing tool: A pilot intervention study.

AIMS: Antibiotic resistance is a global public health problem. Around 55% of dental antibiotic prescribing is deemed inappropriate. The aim of this multimodal interventional pilot study was to assess the effect on prescribing of education and a dentally designed prescribing website. METHODS: Twenty-six dentists were recruited for the 12-week study using a pre-post design. Dentists self-recorded their prescribing of antibiotics, analgesics and anxiolytics for 6 weeks. After dentists were provided education and website access, they recorded their prescribing for a further 6 weeks. Four outcomes were measured comparing the prescribing before and after the intervention: (i) the number of inappropriate indications for which antibiotics were prescribed; (ii) the number of prescriptions; (iii) accuracy of the prescriptions according to the Australian therapeutic guidelines; and (iv) the confidence of practitioners towards the prescribing website. Participants were interviewed for feedback. RESULTS: There was a substantial reduction of 44.6% in the number of inappropriate indications for which antibiotics were prescribed after the intervention and a decrease of 40.5% in the total number of antibiotics. Paracetamol with codeine substantially reduced by 56.8%. For the 3 most commonly prescribed antibiotics (amoxicillin, phenoxymethylpenicillin and metronidazole), there was the improvement in the accuracy of the prescriptions ranging from 0-64.7 to 74.2-100%. CONCLUSION: This pilot study showed the intervention of targeted education and the prescribing tool was effective in improving dental prescribing, knowledge and confidence of practitioners, as well as providing an effective antibiotic stewardship tool. This context-specific intervention shows substantial promise for implementation into dental practice.

Perceptions, attitudes and factors that influence prescribing by general dentists in Australia: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal studies of dental prescribing in Australia show that dentists make some inappropriate prescribing choices; literature has shown that dentists tend to overprescribe antibiotics and prescribe for incorrect indications. The unnecessary use of antibiotics is a contributing factor towards the development of antibiotic resistance. The aims of the study were to obtain a greater understanding of the perceptions, attitudes and factors that influence dental prescribing for all major relevant drug classes. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews of 15 purposively sampled dentists practising in Victoria, Australia were conducted from June-September 2018. Two dentists practised in rural areas and the remainder in urban locations. The range of clinical experience varied from 2.5 to 37 years, with a mean of 13 years. The transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Dentists generally preferred amoxicillin as first-line therapy for odontogenic infections, with some confusion about the spectrum and uses of antibiotics. Overprescribing was evident, mostly due to basing judgement for use of antibiotics on symptoms rather than clinical signs. Other factors, such as time pressure, patient expectations, pressure from assistant staff, concern about online criticism and medico-legal considerations, influenced prescribing. Of the dentists who prescribed anxiolytics, most did not have a care protocol for their sedated patients. CONCLUSION: A variety of prescribing practices were described, and future interventions should target misconceptions around the appropriate use and choice of antibiotics, resources to address the shortfall in knowledge of therapeutics, patient education and staff training, as well as appropriate care and monitoring of sedated patients.

Where are oral and dental adverse drug effects in product information?

OBJECTIVES: Oral adverse drug reactions are common and are associated with some of our most frequently used medicines. It is important to identify and manage oral adverse drug effects promptly as they not only negatively impact dental health, but also adversely affect medication adherence, clinical outcomes and patient quality of life. This study assessed the location of oral drug-induced adverse effects in the registered drug company product information (PI) of the top 100 most commonly used drugs in Australia as dispensed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in 2018. METHOD: Publicly available data on dispensed medicines were accessed from the Australian Commonwealth Department of Health, to determine the top 100 medicines. The drug company PI for each of these drugs was manually searched to find their oral adverse effects. The number, type and location of the oral adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. KEY FINDINGS: Oral ADRs were commonly found varying in nature and severity. However, they were difficult to find as there is no dedicated section for oral/dental adverse effects in the PI and the section they are in is inconsistently applied. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that regulatory authorities such as the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia create an additional section for oral/dental adverse effects so they are easier to find, which may assist health professionals detect recognise and report adverse drug effects manifesting in the oral cavity.