Dental patients as partners in promoting quality and safety: a qualitative exploratory study.

OBJECTIVE: Active patient involvement in promoting quality and safety is a priority for healthcare. We investigated how dental patients perceive their role as partners in promoting quality and safety across various dental care settings. METHODS: Focus group sessions were conducted at three dental practice settings: an academic dental center, a community dental clinic, and a large group private practice, from October 2018-July 2019. Patients were recruited through flyers or word-of-mouth invitations. Each session lasted 2.5 h and patients completed a demographic and informational survey at the beginning. Audio recordings were transcribed, and a hybrid thematic analysis was performed by two independent reviewers using Dedoose. RESULTS: Forty-seven participants took part in eight focus group sessions; 70.2% were females and 38.3% were aged 45-64 years. Results were organized into three major themes: patients' overall perception of dental quality and safety; patients' reaction to an adverse dental event; and patients' role in promoting quality and safety. Dental patients were willing to participate in promoting quality and safety by careful provider selection, shared decision-making, self-advocacy, and providing post-treatment provider evaluations. Their reactions towards adverse dental events varied based on the type of dental practice setting. Some factors that influenced a patient's overall perception of dental quality and safety included provider credentials, communication skills, cleanliness, and durability of dental treatment. CONCLUSION: The type of dental practice setting affected patients' desire to work as partners in promoting dental quality and safety. Although patients acknowledged having an important role to play in their care, their willingness to participate depended on their relationship with their provider and their perception of provider receptivity to patient feedback.

"I'm Torn": Qualitative Analysis of Dental Practitioner-Perceived Barriers, Facilitators, and Solutions to HPV Vaccine Promotion.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine can prevent HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers. Dental practitioners are uniquely positioned to promote HPV vaccines during routine dental care but experience barriers to doing so. Qualitative interviews were conducted with dental practitioners to understand barriers and inform intervention strategies to promote HPV vaccines. Dental practitioners were invited to participate in phone interviews about knowledge, self-efficacy, and the fear of negative consequences related to HPV vaccine promotion as well as feedback on potential interventions to address these barriers. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis with a sort-and-sift matrix approach. Interviews were completed with 11 practitioners from six dental clinics (avg. 31 min). Though most thought HPV vaccination was important, they lacked detailed knowledge about when and to whom the vaccine should be recommended. This led to a hypothesized need for discussions of sexual history, feelings of limited self-efficacy to make the recommendation, and fear of patient concerns. Still, practitioners were supportive of additional training opportunities and provided input into specific interventions. The nuance of how these barriers were described by practitioners, as well as the possible solutions they identified, will help shape future interventions supporting HPV vaccine promotion in dental care.

Clinical Decision Support to Reduce Opioid Prescriptions for Dental Extractions using SMART on FHIR: Implementation Report.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) has the potential to improve clinical decision-making consistent with evidence-based care. CDS can be designed to save health care providers time and help them provide safe and personalized analgesic prescribing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report is to describe the development of a CDS system designed to provide dentists with personalized pain management recommendations to reduce opioid prescribing following extractions. The use of CDS is also examined. METHODS: This study was conducted in HealthPartners, which uses an electronic health record (EHR) system that integrates both medical and dental information upon which the CDS application was developed based on SMART (Substitutable Medical Applications and Reusable Technologies) on FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources). The various tools used to bring relevant medical conditions, medications, patient history, and other relevant data into the CDS interface are described. The CDS application runs a drug interaction algorithm developed by our organization and provides patient-specific recommendations. The CDS included access to the state Prescription Monitoring Program database. IMPLEMENTATION (RESULTS): The pain management CDS was implemented as part of a study examining opioid prescribing among patients undergoing dental extraction procedures from February 17, 2020, to May 14, 2021. Provider-level use of CDS at extraction encounters ranged from 0% to 87.4% with 12.1% of providers opening the CDS for no encounters, 39.4% opening the CDS for 1%-20% of encounters, 36.4% opening it for 21%-50% of encounters, and 12.1% opening it for 51%-87% of encounters. CONCLUSIONS: The pain management CDS is an EHR-embedded, provider-facing tool to help dentists make personalized pain management recommendations following dental extractions. The SMART on FHIR-based pain management CDS adapted well to the point-of-care dental setting and led to the design of a scalable CDS tool that is EHR vendor agnostic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03584789; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03584789.

Periodontal treatment and subsequent clinical outcomes and medical care costs: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Periodontitis is a common oral disease associated with coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular disease (CBVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). We studied if periodontitis treatment improves clinical outcomes and reduces medical care costs in patients with CAD, CBVD or T2D. METHODS: We used clinic records and claims data from a health care system to identify patients with periodontitis and CAD, CBVD or T2D, and to assess periodontal treatments, hospitalizations, medical costs (total, inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy), glycated hemoglobin, cardiovascular events, and death following concurrent disease diagnoses. We compared clinical outcomes according to receipt of periodontal treatment and/or maintenance care in the follow-up period, and care costs according to treatment status within one year following concurrent disease diagnoses, while adjusting for covariates. The data were analyzed in 2019-21. RESULTS: We identified 9,503 individuals, 4,057 of whom were in the CAD cohort; 3,247 in the CBVD cohort; and 4,879 in the T2D cohort. Patients who were selected and elected to receive treatment and maintenance care were less likely to be hospitalized than untreated individuals (CAD: OR = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.92); CBVD: OR = 0.73 (0.56, 0.94); T2D: OR = 0.80 (0.64, 0.99)). Selection to treatment and/or maintenance care was not significantly associated with cardiovascular events, mortality, or glycated hemoglobin change. Total care costs did not differ significantly between treated and untreated groups over 4 years. Treated patients experienced lower inpatient costs but higher pharmacy costs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with periodontitis and CAD, CBVD or T2D who were selected and elected to undergo periodontal treatment or maintenance care had lower rates of hospitalizations, but did not differ significantly from untreated individuals in terms of clinical outcomes or total medical care costs.

De-Implementing Opioids for Dental Extractions (DIODE): a multi-clinic, cluster-randomized trial of clinical decision support strategies in dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Opioid pain relievers are commonly prescribed following dental extractions, but evidence shows that non-opioid analgesics often provide adequate pain relief with fewer risks. The current study examined clinical decision support (CDS) as a tool for de-implementing opioid prescribing in dentistry. METHODS: This prospective, cluster-randomized trial examined CDS for dental pain management at 22 HealthPartners Dental Group clinics in Minnesota. Dental providers (n = 49) were randomized to deliver care using CDS, CDS with patient education materials (CDS-E), or standard practice (SP). Randomization was stratified by provider type (dentist vs. oral surgeon) and baseline opioid prescribing volume. Patient records of dental extractions were examined for January 2019 through May 2021, representing a 12-month baseline and 15-month intervention period (N = 12,924). Opioid prescription at the visit (no vs. yes) was the primary outcome. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models, adjusting for patient sex and age, extraction complexity, and baseline prescribing strata (volume and provider type). RESULTS: Patients were 56.2% female, with a mean age of 46.7 (SD = 20.0) years. Providers were 8% oral surgeons, 57% female, and with a mean age of 43.7 (SD = 11.2) years. There were significant decreases in opioid prescribing during the study (P < 0.001), representing a continuation of pre-existing trends to reduce opioid prescribing in these dental practices. There were no significant differences in opioid prescribing between CDS and SP (OR = 1.29; 97.5% CI = 0.93, 1.79; P = 0.08), or CDS-E and SP arms (OR = 1.27; 97.5% CI = 0.86, 1.79; P = 0.18). The direction of the association favored greater reductions in opioid prescribing in the SP arm. Despite training and implementation support, utilization of the CDS was low, particularly among oral surgeons, who were significantly more likely than other dentists to prescribe opioids. Among non-oral surgeon providers with the opportunity to access it, CDS utilization was not significantly associated with opioid prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Equipping dentists with CDS resources, whether alone or accompanied by patient education materials, did not accelerate reductions in opioid prescribing beyond those observed in standard practice. Strategies are needed to enhance CDS utilization for patient care and safety surrounding analgesia following dental extractions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03584789.

De-implementing opioid prescribing in a dental group practice: Lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: Drug overdose has become a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Between 2000 and 2015, the rate of deaths from drug overdoses increased 137%, including a 200% increase in the rate of overdose deaths involving opioids (including opioid pain relievers and heroin). Unnecessary opioid prescribing is one of the factors driving this epidemic. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this paper is to share lessons learned while conducting a randomized trial to de-implement opioids for post-extraction pain management utilizing clinical decision support (CDS) with and without patient education. The lessons learned from conducting this trial in a real-world setting can be applied to future dissemination and implementation oral health research. METHODS: The sources informing lessons learned were generated from qualitative interviews conducted with 20 of the forty-nine dental providers involved in the study following the implementation phase of the trial. Ongoing policy, social and environmental factors were tracked throughout the study. RESULTS: Dental providers in the trial identified the impact of training that involved health professionals sharing information about the personal impact of pain and opioid use. Additionally, they found utility in being presented with a dashboard detailing their prescribing patterns related to other dentists. For the 30 general dentists with access to the CDS, use of its portal varied widely, with most using it 10%-49% of the time related to extractions. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a downward trend in opioid prescribing and considering the influence of the COVID pandemic during the trial, dental providers indicated benefit in training about negative personal impacts of prescribing opioids, and personally relevant feedback about their prescribing patterns. Only modest use of the CDS was realized. Implementation of this trial was impacted by governmental and health system policies and the COVID pandemic, prompt the consideration of implications regarding continuing ways to limit opioid prescribing among dental providers.

Patient, Provider Type, and Procedure Type Factors Associated with Opioid Prescribing by Dentists in a Health Care System.

INTRODUCTION: Reports examining opioid prescribing for dental conditions are limited and do not examine patient-level factors. This study examines the association of patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, Medicaid coverage, and the need for an interpreter in addition to procedure type and dental provider type with receipt of an opioid prescription in dental care settings within a large health system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted utilizing data from the electronic health record of HealthPartners, a large dental practice embedded within a health care system. The analytic sample consisted of all 169,173 encounters from 90,487 patients undergoing a dental procedure in the baseline period (9/1/2018 to 8/30/2019), prior to implementing a clinical trial to de-implement opioids in dentistry. RESULTS: Opioids were prescribed at 1.9% of all 169,173 encounters and rates varied by patient factors, procedure category, and provider type. Opioid prescriptions were most likely for extraction encounters (25.9%). In a multivariable analysis of 8760 extraction encounters, all patient age groups were more likely than those age 66+ to receive an opioid prescription, particularly those age 18-25 (OR=6.94). Patients having a complex rather than simple extraction were more likely to receive an opioid prescription (OR=6.31) and those seen by an oral surgeon rather than a general dentist (OR=9.11) were more likely to receive an opioid prescription. Among 108,748 encounters with a diagnostic procedure, opioid prescribing was more likely among male than female patients (OR=1.20), Black patients relative to White (OR=1.69), patients with Medicaid coverage (OR=1.86), and patients seeing an oral surgeon rather than a general dentist (OR=27.81). CONCLUSION: Opioid prescribing rates vary considerably depending on procedure type. Patterns of associations between patient factors and opioid prescribing also vary considerably across procedure type. To understand which patient groups are more at risk of being prescribed opioids, it is essential to consider the procedures they are receiving.

De-Implementing Opioid Use and Implementing Optimal Pain Management Following Dental Extractions (DIODE): Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Overdose deaths from prescription opioid analgesics are a continuing crisis in the United States. Opioid analgesics are among the most frequently prescribed drugs by dentists. An estimated 5 million people undergo third-molar extractions in the United States each year, resulting in postoperative pain. Studies show that, in most cases, the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen is an effective alternative to commonly prescribed opioid analgesics for the management of postextraction pain. Nevertheless, many dentists routinely prescribe opioids after dental extractions. OBJECTIVE: We describe the rationale, design, and methods for a randomized trial of interventions designed to de-implement opioid prescribing by dentists while implementing effective nonopioid analgesics following dental extractions. METHODS: Using a prospective, 3-arm, cluster randomized trial design with dentists as the unit randomized and patient-level prescribing data as the primary outcome, we will compare different strategies to reduce the reliance on opioids and increase the use of alternative pain management approaches utilizing information support tools aimed at both providers and their patients. The study will test the efficacy of 2 interventions to decrease opioid prescribing following dental extractions: clinical decision support with (CDS-E) and without patient education (CDS). Providers will be randomized to CDS, CDS-E, or standard practice. Patient-level outcomes will be determined via review of comprehensive electronic health records. We will compare study arms on differential change in prescribing patterns from pre- to postimplementation of the intervention. The primary outcome of interest is a binary indicator of whether or not the patient received an opioid prescription on the day of the extraction encounter. We will also examine recommendations or prescriptions for nonopioid analgesics, patients' perceptions of shared decision making, and patients' pain experiences following the extraction. RESULTS: The HealthPartners Institutional Review Board approved the study. All study materials including the CDS and patient education materials have been developed and pilot tested, and the protocol has been approved by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. The intervention was implemented in February 2020, with 51 dentists who were randomized to 1 of the 3 arms. CONCLUSIONS: If the intervention strategies are shown to be effective, they could be implemented more broadly in dental settings with high levels of opioid prescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03584789, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03584789. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24342.

Quantifying Dental Office-Originating Adverse Events: The Dental Practice Study Methods.

BACKGROUND: Preventable medical errors in hospital settings are the third leading cause of deaths in the United States. However, less is known about harm that occurs in patients in outpatient settings, where the majority of care is delivered. We do not know the likelihood that a patient sitting in a dentist chair will experience harm. Additionally, we do not know if patients of certain race, age, sex, or socioeconomic status disproportionately experience iatrogenic harm. METHODS: We initiated the Dental Practice Study (DPS) with the aim of determining the frequency and types of adverse events (AEs) that occur in dentistry on the basis of retrospective chart audit. This article discusses the 6-month pilot phase of the DPS during which we explored the feasibility and efficiency of our multistaged review process to detect AEs. RESULTS: At sites 1, 2, and 3, respectively, 2 reviewers abstracted 21, 11, and 23 probable AEs, respectively, from the 100 patient charts audited per site. At site 2, a third reviewer audited the same 100 charts and found only 1 additional probable AE. Of the total 56 probable AEs (from 300 charts), the expert panel confirmed 9 AE cases. This equals 3 AEs per 100 patients per year. Patients who experienced an AE tended to be male and older and to have undergone more procedures within the study year. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents an overview of the DPS. It describes the methods used and summarizes the results of its pilot phase. To minimize threats to dental patient safety, a starting point is to understand their basic epidemiology, both in terms of their frequency and the extent to which they affect different populations.

General Dentists' Use of Isolation Techniques during Root Canal Treatment: From the National Dental Practice-based Research Network.

INTRODUCTION: A preliminary study done by a National Dental Practice-Based Research Network precursor observed that 44% of general dentists (GDs) reported always using a rubber dam (RD) during root canal treatment (RCT). This full-scale study quantified the use of all isolation techniques, including RD use. METHODS: Network practitioners completed a questionnaire about isolation techniques used during RCT. Network enrollment questionnaire data provided practitioner characteristics. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred ninety of 1716 eligible GDs participated (87%); 697 (47%) reported always using an RD. This percentage varied by tooth type. These GDs were more likely to always use an RD, do not own a private practice, perform less than 10 RCTs/month, and have postgraduate training. CONCLUSIONS: Most GDs do not use an RD all the time. Ironically, RDs are used more frequently by GDs who do not perform molar RCT. RD use varies with tooth type and certain dentist, practice, and patient characteristics.

Restorative material and other tooth-specific variables associated with the decision to repair or replace defective restorations: findings from the dental PBRN.

OBJECTIVES: Using data from dentists participating in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN), the study had 2 main objectives: (1) to identify and quantify the types of restorative materials in the existing failed restorations; and (2) to identify and quantify the materials used to repair or replace those failed restorations. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a consecutive patient/restoration recruitment design. Practitioner-investigators recorded data on consecutive restorations in permanent teeth that needed repair or replacement. Data included the primary reason for repair or replacement, tooth surface(s) involved, restorative materials used, and patient demographics. RESULTS: Data for 9,875 restorations were collected from 7,502 patients in 197 practices for which 75% of restorations were replaced and 25% repaired. Most of the restorations that were either repaired or replaced were amalgam (56%) for which most (56%) of the material used was direct tooth-colored. The restorative material was 5 times more likely to be changed when the original restoration was amalgam (OR = 5.2, p < .001). The likelihood of changing an amalgam restoration differed as a function of the tooth type (OR = 3.0, p < .001), arch (OR = 6.6, p < .001); and number of surfaces in the original restoration (OR = 12.2, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The probability of changing from amalgam to another restorative material differed with several characteristics of the original restoration. The change was most likely to take place when (1) the treatment was a replacement; (2) the tooth was not a molar; (3) the tooth was in the maxillary arch; and (4) the original restoration involved a single surface.

Utilization of nondentist providers and attitudes toward new provider models: findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to quantify, within the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network, current utilization of dental hygienists and assistants with expanded functions and quantify network dentists' attitudes toward a new nondentist provider model - the dental therapist. METHODS: National Dental Practice-Based Research Network practitioner-investigators participated in a single, cross-sectional administration of a questionnaire. RESULTS: Current nondentist providers are not being utilized by network practitioner-investigators to the fullest extent allowed by law. Minnesota practitioners, practitioners in large group practices, and those with prior experience with expanded-function nondentist providers delegate at a higher rate and had more-positive perceptions of the new dental therapist model. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding scopes of practice for dental hygienists and assistants has not translated to the maximal delegation allowed by law among network practices. This finding may provide insight into dentists' acceptance of newer nondentist provider models.

Caries treatment in a dental practice-based research network: movement toward stated evidence-based treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) provide a venue to foster evidence-based care. We tested the hypothesis that a higher level of participation in a dental PBRN is associated with greater stated change toward evidence-based practice. METHODS: A total of 565 dental PBRN practitioner-investigators completed a baseline questionnaire entitled 'Assessment of Caries Diagnosis and Treatment'; 405 of these also completed a follow-up questionnaire about treatment of caries and existing restorations. Certain questions (six treatment scenarios) were repeated at follow-up a mean (SD) of 36.0 (3.8) months later. A total of 224 were 'full participants' (enrolled in clinical studies and attended at least one network meeting); 181 were 'partial participants' (did not meet 'full' criteria). RESULTS: From 10% to 62% of practitioners were 'surgically invasive' at baseline, depending on the clinical scenario. Stated treatment approach was significantly less invasive at follow-up for four of six items. Change was greater among full participants and those with a more-invasive approach at baseline, with an overall pattern of movement away from the extremes. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with a preliminary conclusion that network participation fostered movement of scientific evidence into routine practice. PBRNs may foster movement of evidence into everyday practice as practitioners become engaged in the scientific process.

A comparison of dental restoration outcomes after placement by restorative function auxiliaries versus dentists.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of restorations placed by restorative function auxiliaries (RFAs) with those placed by dentists. METHODS: Between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008, we matched 455 restorations placed by RFAs working at HealthPartners Dental Group with the same number placed by dentists. Restorations were matched by tooth number, American Dental Association procedure code, and patient age-group. RESULTS: Of 910 restorations, 17 (1.9 percent) had problems potentially related to the filling or crown placement during the first year. Problem rates were not significantly different (p = 0.33) for restorations placed by RFAs (1.3 percent, 6 of 455) and those placed by dentists (2.4 percent, 11 of 455). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in problem rates for restorations placed by RFAs versus those placed by dentists. This finding may free dentists to handle more difficult cases, alleviating some of the pressures of daily practice and meeting the need for improved access.

Restorative material and other tooth-specific variables associated with the decision to repair or replace defective restorations: findings from The Dental PBRN.

OBJECTIVES: Using data from dentists participating in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN), the study had 2 main objectives: (1) to identify and quantify the types of restorative materials in the existing failed restorations; and (2) to identify and quantify the materials used to repair or replace those failed restorations. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a consecutive patient/restoration recruitment design. Practitioner-investigators recorded data on consecutive restorations in permanent teeth that needed repair or replacement. Data included the primary reason for repair or replacement, tooth surface(s) involved, restorative materials used, and patient demographics. RESULTS: Data for 9875 restorations were collected from 7502 patients in 197 practices for which 75% of restorations were replaced and 25% repaired. Most of the restorations that were either repaired or replaced were amalgam (56%) for which most (56%) of the material used was direct tooth-coloured. The restorative material was 5 times more likely to be changed when the original restoration was amalgam (OR=5.2, p<.001). The likelihood of changing an amalgam restoration differed as a function of the tooth type (OR=3.0, p<.001), arch (OR=6.6, p<.001); and number of surfaces in the original restoration (OR=12.2, p<.001). CONCLUSION: The probability of changing from amalgam to another restorative material differed with several characteristics of the original restoration. The change was most likely to take place when (1) the treatment was a replacement; (2) the tooth was not a molar; (3) the tooth was in the maxillary arch; and (4) the original restoration involved a single surface.