Evaluating and improving the usability of a mHealth platform to assess postoperative dental pain.

Objectives: The use of interactive mobile health (mHealth) applications to monitor patient-reported postoperative pain outcomes is an emerging area in dentistry that requires further exploration. This study aimed to evaluate and improve the usability of an existing mHealth application. Materials and methods: The usability of the application was assessed iteratively using a 3-phase approach, including a rapid cognitive walkthrough (Phase I), lab-based usability testing (Phase II), and in situ pilot testing (Phase III). The study team conducted Phase I, while providers and patients participated in Phase II and III. Results: The rapid cognitive walkthrough identified 23 potential issues that could negatively impact user experience, with the majority classified as system issues. The lab-based usability testing yielded 141 usability issues.; 43% encountered by patients and 57% by dentists. Usability problems encountered during pilot testing included undelivered messages due to mobile phone carrier and service-related issues, errors in patients' phone number data entry, and problems in provider training. Discussion: Through collaborative and iterative work with the vendor, usability issues were addressed before launching a trial to assess its efficacy. Conclusion: The usability of the mHealth application for postoperative dental pain was remarkably improved by the iterative analysis and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Patient and dentist perspectives on collecting patient reported outcomes after painful dental procedures in the National Dental PBRN.

BACKGROUND: Dental Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) relate to a dental patient's subjective experience of their oral health. How practitioners and patients value PROs influences their successful use in practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 practitioners and 32 patients who provided feedback on using a mobile health (mHealth) platform to collect the pain experience after dental procedures. A themes analysis was conducted to identify implementation barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Five themes were uncovered: (1) Sense of Better Care. (2) Tailored Follow-up based on the dental procedure and patient's pain experience. (3) Effective Messaging and Alerts. (4) Usable Digital Platform. (5) Routine mHealth Integration. CONCLUSION: Frequent automated and preferably tailored follow-up messages using an mHealth platform provided a positive care experience for patients, while providers felt it saved them time and effort. Patients thought that the mHealth questionnaires were well-developed and of appropriate length. The mHealth platform itself was perceived as user-friendly by users, and most would like to continue using it. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients are prepared to use mobile phones to report their pain experience after dental procedures. Practitioners will be able to close the post-operative communication gap with their patients, with little interruption of their workflow.

Development of a Quality Improvement Dental Chart Review Training Program.

INTRODUCTION: Chart review is central to understanding adverse events (AEs) in medicine. In this article, we describe the process and results of educating chart reviewers assigned to evaluate dental AEs. METHODS: We developed a Web-based training program, "Dental Patient Safety Training," which uses both independent and consensus-based curricula, for identifying AEs recorded in electronic health records in the dental setting. Training included (1) didactic education, (2) skills training using videos and guided walkthroughs, (3) quizzes with feedback, and (4) hands-on learning exercises. In addition, novice reviewers were coached weekly during consensus review discussions. TeamExpert was composed of 2 experienced reviewers, and TeamNovice included 2 chart reviewers in training. McNemar test, interrater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated to compare accuracy rates on the identification of charts containing AEs at the start of training and 7 months after consensus building discussions between the 2 teams. RESULTS: TeamNovice completed independent and consensus development training. Initial chart reviews were conducted on a shared set of charts (n = 51) followed by additional training including consensus building discussions. There was a marked improvement in overall percent agreement, prevalence and bias-adjusted κ correlation, and diagnostic measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) of reviewed charts between both teams from the phase I training program to phase II consensus building. CONCLUSIONS: This study detailed the process of training new chart reviewers and evaluating their performance. Our results suggest that standardized training and continuous coaching improves calibration between experts and trained chart reviewers.