How dental team members describe adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Although some patients experience adverse events (AEs) resulting in harm caused by treatments in dentistry, few published reports have detailed how dental providers describe these events. Understanding how dental treatment professionals view AEs is essential to building a safer environment in dental practice. METHODS: The authors interviewed dental professionals and domain experts through focus groups and in-depth interviews and asked them to identify the types of AEs that may occur in dental settings. RESULTS: The initial interview and focus group findings yielded 1,514 items that included both causes and AEs. In total, 632 causes were coded into 1 of the 8 categories of the Eindhoven classification, and 882 AEs were coded into 12 categories of a newly developed dental AE classification. Interrater reliability was moderate among coders. The list was reanalyzed, and duplicate items were removed leaving a total of 747 unique AEs and 540 causes. The most frequently identified AE types were "aspiration and ingestion" at 14% (n = 142), "wrong-site, wrong-procedure, wrong-patient errors" at 13%, "hard-tissue damage" at 13%, and "soft-tissue damage" at 12%. CONCLUSIONS: Dental providers identified a large and diverse list of AEs. These events ranged from "death due to cardiac arrest" to "jaw fatigue from lengthy procedures." PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Identifying threats to patient safety is a key element of improving dental patient safety. An inventory of dental AEs underpins efforts to track, prevent, and mitigate these events.

The dangers of dental devices as reported in the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a study to determine the frequency and type of adverse events (AEs) associated with dental devices reported to the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. METHODS: The authors downloaded and reviewed the dental device-related AEs reported to MAUDE from January 1, 1996, through December 31,2011. RESULTS: MAUDE received a total of 1,978,056 reports between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2011. Among these reports, 28,046 (1.4%) AE reports were associated with dental devices. Within the dental AE reports that had event type information, 17,261 reported injuries, 7,777 reported device malfunctions, and 66 reported deaths. Among the 66 entries classified as death reports, 52 reported a death in the description; the remaining were either misclassified or lacked sufficient information in the report to determine whether a death had occurred. Of the dental device-associated AEs, 53.5% pertained to endosseous implants. CONCLUSIONS: A plethora of devices are used in dental care. To achieve Element 1 of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Initiative, clinicians and researchers must be able to monitor the safety of dental devices. Although MAUDE was identified by the authors as essentially the sole source of this valuable information on adverse events, their investigations led them to conclude that MAUDE had substantial limitations that prevent it from being the broad-based patient safety sentinel the profession requires. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: As potential contributors to MAUDE, dental care teams play a key role in improving the profession's access to information about the safety of dental devices.

Antemortem dental records: attitudes and practices of forensic dentists.

This study was designed to provide insight concerning the attitudes and practices of forensic dentists regarding antemortem dental records reviewed for purposes of dental identification. Forensic dentists were invited to participate in a 10 item survey. The majority of the respondents reported a considerable amount of experience in dental identifications of the deceased. Sixty-six percent reported having suspected dental negligence or fraud in their antemortem record reviews. Only 17% believe that a forensic dentist should report suspected dental negligence, while 31% agree that dental fraud should be reported. Their response to additional issues addressed in the study suggests diversity in the practices and attitudes of forensic dentists in the use of antemortem dental records. In conclusion, opening a dialogue among practicing forensic dentists may lead to a standardized set of recommendations by the appropriate societies in the forensic dental community.