The Francis Report--implications for the regulator.

The professional regulators were identified in the Francis Report as having a central role in maintaining fundamental standards of care. This paper describes the key themes in the Report and the importance of regulatory powers to ensure that the serious failings in patient care highlighted by the Mid-Staffs Inquiry cannot be repeated. The central role of the GDC Standards in the profession's response to the Francis Report is stressed. Clinical Relevance: The importance of our professional regulator in ensuring adherence to fundamental standards of care is a central tenet of clinical dentistry.

The Francis Report--implications for oral care of the elderly.

Oral health is an essential, yet often neglected, aspect of care in the elderly population. A mouth free of pain and disease which is functional, comfortable and aesthetic improves quality of life. Following the shocking reports of patient neglect and abuse published in the Francis Report, the dental profession must acknowledge that there are longstanding deficiencies in the provision of oral healthcare for the elderly, whether residing in care homes, hospitals or at home with support. It must be a universal goal to improve the care provision for this population through developing a greater understanding and overcoming the multi-factorial barriers to care. This article will highlight the key features of the Francis Report and its significance in the context of oral healthcare provision for the elderly. Clinical Relevance: To provide insight into the oral healthcare needs of the growing elderly population and the necessity of dealing with the current limitations in service provision.

The Francis Report--dento-legal implications.

This article explores the potential implications of the Francis Report for members of the dental team from a dento-legal perspective. It looks at the broad recommendations in light of the existing ethical environment in which dental registrants work and asks what is new and what the recommendations will actually mean for dental professionals in practical terms. Clinical Relevance: The fundamental recommendations of the Francis Report, namely, that those who provide care should put patients' interests first and be open about outcomes and performance, are not new concepts. A breach of these ethically based expectations may, however, create grounds for legal proceedings, which is clearly a significant point for all members of the dental team. It is therefore important to be aware of what is expected of those providing clinical care.

The efficacy of screening for common dental diseases by hygiene-therapists: a diagnostic test accuracy study.

Regularly attending adult patients are increasingly asymptomatic and not in need of treatment when attending for their routine dental examinations. As oral health improves further, using the general dental practitioner to undertake the "checkup" on regular "low-risk" patients represents a substantial and potentially unnecessary cost for state-funded systems. Given recent regulatory changes in the United Kingdom, it is now theoretically possible to delegate a range of tasks to hygiene-therapists. This has the potential to release the general dental practitioner's time and increase the capacity to care. The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic test accuracy of hygiene-therapists when screening for dental caries and periodontal disease in regularly attending asymptomatic adults who attend for their checkup. A visual screen by hygiene-therapists acted as the index test, and the general dental practitioner acted as the reference standard. Consenting asymptomatic adult patients, who were regularly attending patients at 10 practices across the Northwest of England, entered the study. Both sets of clinicians made an assessment of dental caries and periodontal disease. The primary outcomes measured were the sensitivity and specificity values for dental caries and periodontal disease. In total, 1899 patients were screened. The summary point for sensitivity of dental care professionals when screening for caries and periodontal disease was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.87) and 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92), respectively. The summary point for specificity of dental care professionals when screening for caries and periodontal disease was 0.87 (0.78 to 0.92) and 0.75 (0.66 to 0.82), respectively. The results suggest that hygiene-therapists could be used to screen for dental caries and periodontal disease. This has important ramifications for service design in public-funded health systems.

Update on guidelines for selecting appropriate patients to receive treatment with dental implants: priorities for the NHS--the position after 15 years.

In 1997 the Faculty of Dental Surgery (Royal College of Surgeons, England) as part of a wider publication produced guidance on prioritisation for the selection of patients to receive treatment with dental implants within the NHS in the UK (http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/fds/publications-clinical-guidelines/clinical_guidelines/index.html). This update considers eight main groups who may benefit from treatment with osseointegrated implants. Where patients are being considered for implant-based rehabilitation, treatment plans must be weighed up against the risks, benefits and outcomes outlined in evidence-based research.

Patient-centred care in general dental practice: sound sense or soundbite?

This paper explores the concept of patient-centred care as a dimension of quality as applied to dentistry and provides a systematic review of the literature. The new NHS dental contract, which is currently being piloted in England, is committed to delivering improvements in quality. The Dental Quality and Outcomes Framework has been developed as a tool to measure quality and focuses on three key dimensions: clinical effectiveness, safety and patient experience. A systematic review of the literature reveals a lack of information pertaining to patient-centred care within dentistry, and in particular general dental practice. It would also suggest that there is currently a poor evidence base to support the use of the current patient reported outcome measures as indicators of patient centredness.

Evaluation of the end user (dentist) experience of undertaking clinical audit in the post April 2001 general dental services (GDS) scheme.

INTRODUCTION: A mandatory scheme for clinical audit in the general dental services (GDS) was launched in April 2001. No evaluation of this mandatory scheme exists in the literature. This study provides an evaluation of this scheme. More recently a new dental contract was introduced in the general dental services (GDS) in April 2006. Responsibility for clinical audit activities was devolved to primary care trusts (PCTs) as part of their clinical governance remit. METHODS: All GDPs within Essex were contacted by letter and invited to participate in the research. A qualitative research method was selected for this evaluation, utilising audio-taped semi-structured research interviews with eight general dental practitioners (GDPs) who had taken part in the GDS clinical audit scheme and who fitted the sampling criteria and strategy. The evaluation focused on dentists' experiences of the scheme. RESULTS: The main findings from the analysis of the GDS scheme data suggest that there is clear evidence of change following audit activities occurring within practices and for the benefit of patients. However, often it is the dentist only that undertakes a clinical audit project rather than the dental team, there is a lack of dissemination of project findings beyond the individual participating practices, very little useful feedback provided to participants who have completed a project and very limited use of formal re-auditing of a particular topic. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evaluation of the GDS clinical audit scheme. Organisations who propose to undertake clinical audit activities in conjunction with dentistry in the future may benefit from incorporating and/or developing some findings from this evaluation into their project design and avoiding others.

Improving governance to improve oral health: addressing care delivery systems.

The evolving role of the state in the provision of health care has seen the adoption of new management philosophies to ensure that goals set for the system are reached. In particular, the term New Public Management (NPM) has tended to dominate reforms to help address perceived shortcomings in public sector services. NPM is based on the use of freemarket type arrangements as a mechanism to solve problems, the control of which provides new challenges. One particular challenge that has arisen from the combination of NPM with the large number of agencies involved in care provision is that of addressing the issues arising from the improved understanding of the determinants of health. This has led to the evolution of differing care arrangements across differing sectors at all levels. If resources are to be used as intended, the control of delivery systems to oversee their use must exist. The overarching term for such activity is â governance. This paper provides an overview of the issues that arise for addressing governance of oral health care and the subsequent challenges that face those responsible for ensuring compliance.

Introducing care pathway commissioning to primary dental care: measuring performance.

Care pathways have been used in a variety of ways: firstly to support quality improvement through standardising clinical processes, but also for secondary purposes, by purchasers of healthcare, to monitor activity and health outcomes and to commission services. This paper focuses on reporting a secondary use of care pathways: to commission and monitor performance of primary dental care services. Findings of a project involving three dental practices implementing a system based on rating patients according to their risk of disease and need for care are outlined. Data from surgery-based clinical databases and interviews from commissioners and providers are reported. The use of both process and outcome key performance indicators in this context is discussed, as well as issues which arise such as attributability of outcome measures and strategic approaches to improving quality of care.

Quality indicators: the rationale behind their use in NHS dentistry.

This paper explores the concept of quality as applied to healthcare and its subsequent application to dentistry. The assessment of quality arose from the manufacturing industry and is viewed as a cornerstone of current Government thinking. The difficulties in defining and therefore in measuring are examined and, in particular, the tensions between quantifying quality at a population level and at an individual level. The findings of the application of quality measures to primary medical care are reviewed, especially those that are linked to financial reimbursement of care providers and the implications for any future dental agenda discussed.