Recruitment strategies and retention rates for five National Dental PBRN studies.

Background: We describe a retrospective assessment of practitioner and patient recruitment strategies, patient retention strategies, and rates for five clinical studies conducted in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network between 2012 and 2019, and practitioner and patient characteristics associated with retention. Methods: Similar recruitment strategies were adopted in the studies. The characteristics of the practitioners and patients are described. The proportion of patients who either attended a follow-up (FU) assessment or completed an online assessment was calculated. For studies with multiple FU visits or questionnaire assessments, rates for completing each FU were calculated, as were the rates for completing any and for completing all FU assessments. The associations of practitioner and patient characteristics with all clinic FU visits, and with the completion of all assessments for a study were ascertained. Results: Overall, 591 practitioners and 12,159 patients were included. FU rates by patients for any assessment varied from 91% to 96.5%, and rates for participating in all assessments ranged from 68% to 87%. The mean total number of patients each practitioner recruited was 21 (sd = 15); the mean number per study was 13 (sd = 7). For practitioners, practice type and patient enrollment were associated with greater clinic retention, while only race was associated with their patients completing post-visit online assessments. For patients, age was associated with clinic retention, while female gender, age, race, and education were all associated with greater completion of post-visit online assessments. Conclusion: The Network efficiently recruited practitioners and patients and achieved high patient retention rates for the five studies.

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.

FINDINGS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FROM A SMOKING CESSATION TRIAL UTILIZING A CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT TOOL.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of disease, death, and disability in the United States. Dental practitioners are advised to provide evidence-based smoking cessation interventions to their patients, yet dental practitioners frequently fail to deliver brief smoking cessation advice. OBJECTIVES: To test whether giving dental practitioners a clinical decisions support (CDS) system embedded in their electronic dental record would increase the rate at which patients who smoke (1) report receiving a brief intervention or referral to treatment during a recent dental visit, (2) taking action related to smoking cessation within 7 days of visit, and (3) stop smoking for 1 day or more or reduce the amount smoked by 50% within 6 months. METHODS: Two-group, parallel arm, cluster-randomized trial. From March through December 2019, 15 nonacademic primary care dental clinics were randomized via covariate adaptive randomization to either a usual care arm or the CDS arm. Adult smokers completed an initial telephone survey within 7 days of their visit and another survey after 6 months. RESULTS: Forty-three patients from 5 CDS and 13 patients from 2 usual care clinics completed the 7-day survey. While the proportion of patients who reported receipt of a brief intervention or referral to treatment was significantly greater in the CDS arm than the usual care arm (84.3% vs 58.6%; P = .005), the differences in percentage of patients who took any action related to smoking cessation within 7 days (44.4% vs 22.3%; P = .077), or stopped smoking for one day or more and/or reduced amount smoked by 50% within 6 months (63.1% vs 46.2%; P = .405) were large but not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite interruption by COVID-19, these results demonstrate a promising approach to assist dental practitioners in providing their patients with smoking cessation screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment.

Translating periodontal data to knowledge in a learning health system.

BACKGROUND: A learning health system (LHS) is a health system in which patients and clinicians work together to choose care on the basis of best evidence and to drive discovery as a natural outgrowth of every clinical encounter to ensure the right care at the right time. An LHS for dentistry is now feasible, as an increased number of oral health care encounters are captured in electronic health records (EHRs). METHODS: The authors used EHRs data to track periodontal health outcomes at 3 large dental institutions. The 2 outcomes of interest were a new periodontitis case (for patients who had not received a diagnosis of periodontitis previously) and tooth loss due to progression of periodontal disease. RESULTS: The authors assessed a total of 494,272 examinations (new periodontitis outcome: n = 168,442; new tooth loss outcome: n = 325,830), representing a total of 194,984 patients. Dynamic dashboards displaying performance on both measures over time allow users to compare demographic and risk factors for patients. The incidence of new periodontitis and tooth loss was 4.3% and 1.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Periodontal disease, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment are particularly well suited for an LHS model. The results showed the feasibility of automated extraction and interpretation of critical data elements from the EHRs. The 2 outcome measures are being implemented as part of a dental LHS. The authors are using this knowledge to target the main drivers of poorer periodontal outcomes in a specific patient population, and they continue to use clinical health data for the purpose of learning and improvement. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dental institutions of any size can conduct contemporaneous self-evaluation and immediately implement targeted strategies to improve oral health outcomes.

Leveraging Clinical Decision Support and Integrated Medical-Dental Electronic Health Records to Implementing Precision in Oral Cancer Risk Assessment and Preventive Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Precision medicine is focused on serving the unique needs of individuals. Oral and oropharyngeal cancer risk assessment identifies individual risk factors while providing support to reduce risk. The objective is to examine potential current and future strategies to broadly implement evidence-based oral and oropharyngeal cancer risk assessment and screening in dental practices throughout the United States. METHODS: Feasible and effective oral cancer risk assessment and risk reduction strategies, ripe for implementation in dental practice, were identified in the published literature. RESULTS: The Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral for Treatment (SBIRT) model is a feasible approach to assessing individual oral cancer risk and providing risk reducing interventions in the dental setting. HPV is a more recently identified risk factor that dentistry is well positioned to address. Evidence supporting the utilization of specific risk assessment tools and risk reduction strategies is summarized and future opportunities discussed. DISCUSSION: Current knowledge of risk factors for oral and oropharyngeal cancers support the recommendation for dental providers to routinely assess all patients for risk factors, educate them about their personal level of cancer risk, and recommend actions to reduce relevant risk factors. Individuals ages 9-26 should be asked about their HPV vaccination status, educated about HPV and oropharyngeal cancer and receive a recommendation to get the HPV vaccination.

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.

Leveraging Electronic Dental Record Data for Clinical Research in the National Dental PBRN Practices.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility of conducting clinical research using electronic dental record (EDR) data from U.S. solo and small-group general dental practices in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (network) and evaluate the data completeness and correctness before performing survival analyses of root canal treatment (RCT) and posterior composite restorations (PCR). METHODS: Ninety-nine network general dentistry practices that used Dentrix or EagleSoft EDR shared de-identified data of patients who received PCR and/or RCT on permanent teeth through October 31, 2015. We evaluated the data completeness and correctness, summarized practice, and patient characteristics and summarized the two treatments by tooth type and arch location. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of practitioners were male, with a mean age of 49 and 22.4 years of clinical experience. The final dataset comprised 217,887 patients and 11,289,594 observations, with the observation period ranging from 0 to 37 years. Most patients (73%) were 18 to 64 years old; 56% were female. The data were nearly 100% complete. Eight percent of observations had incorrect data, such as incorrect tooth number or surface, primary teeth, supernumerary teeth, and tooth ranges, indicating multitooth procedures instead of PCR or RCT. Seventy-three percent of patients had dental insurance information; 27% lacked any insurance information. While gender was documented for all patients, race/ethnicity was missing in the dataset. CONCLUSION: This study established the feasibility of using EDR data integrated from multiple distinct solo and small-group network practices for longitudinal studies to assess treatment outcomes. The results laid the groundwork for a learning health system that enables practitioners to learn about their patients' outcomes by using data from their own practice.

Practice change toward better adherence to evidence-based treatment of early dental decay in the National Dental PBRN.

BACKGROUND: Significant national investments have aided the development of practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in both medicine and dentistry. Little evidence has examined the translational impact of these efforts and whether PBRN involvement corresponds to better adoption of best available evidence. This study addresses that gap in knowledge and examines changes in early dental decay among PBRN participants and non-participants with access to the same evidence-based guideline. This study examines the following questions regarding PBRN participation: are practice patterns of providers with PBRN engagement in greater concordance with current evidence? Does provider participation in a PBRNs increase concordance with current evidence? Do providers who participate in PBRN activities disseminate knowledge to their colleagues? METHODS: Logistic regression models adjusting for clustering at the clinic and provider levels compared restoration (dental fillings) rates from 2005-2011 among 35 providers in a large staff model practice. All new codes for early-stage caries (dental decay) and co-occurring caries were identified. Treatment was determined by codes occurring up to 6 months following the date of diagnosis. Provider PBRN engagement was determined by study involvement and meeting attendance. RESULTS: In 2005, restoration rates were high (79.5%), decreased to 47.6% by 2011 (p < .01), and differed by level of PBRN engagement. In 2005, engaged providers were less likely to use restorations compared to the unengaged (73.1% versus 88.2%; p < .01). Providers with high PBRN involvement decreased use of restorations by 15.4% from 2005 to 2008 (2005: 73%, 2008: 63%; p < .01). Providers with no PBRN involvement decreased use by only 7.5% (2005: 88%, 2008: 82%; p = .041). During the latter half of 2008 following the May PBRN meeting, attendees reduced restorations by 7.5%, compared to a 2.4% among non-attendees (OR = .64, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Based on actual clinical data, PBRN engagement was associated with practice change consistent with current evidence on treatment of early dental decay. The impact of PBRN engagement was most significant for the most-engaged providers and consistent with a spillover effect onto same-clinic providers who were not PBRN-engaged. PBRNs can generate relevant evidence and expedite translation into practice.

Pay for performance: will dentistry follow?

BACKGROUND: "Pay for performance" is an incentive system that has been gaining acceptance in medicine and is currently being considered for implementation in dentistry. However, it remains unclear whether pay for performance can effect significant and lasting changes in provider behavior and quality of care. Provider acceptance will likely increase if pay for performance programs reward true quality. Therefore, we adopted a quality-oriented approach in reviewing those factors which could influence whether it will be embraced by the dental profession. DISCUSSION: The factors contributing to the adoption of value-based purchasing were categorized according to the Donabedian quality of care framework. We identified the dental insurance market, the dental profession position, the organization of dental practice, and the dental patient involvement as structural factors influencing the way dental care is practiced and paid for. After considering variations in dental care and the early stage of development for evidence-based dentistry, the scarcity of outcome indicators, lack of clinical markers, inconsistent use of diagnostic codes and scarcity of electronic dental records, we concluded that, for pay for performance programs to be successfully implemented in dentistry, the dental profession and health services researchers should: 1) expand the knowledge base; 2) increase considerably evidence-based clinical guidelines; and 3) create evidence-based performance measures tied to existing clinical practice guidelines. SUMMARY: In this paper, we explored factors that would influence the adoption of value-based purchasing programs in dentistry. Although none of these factors were essential deterrents for the implementation of pay for performance programs in medicine, the aggregate seems to indicate that significant changes are needed before this type of program could be considered a realistic option in dentistry.