Using Registered Dental Hygienists to Promote a School-Based Approach to Dental Public Health.

We examine a strategy for improving oral health in the United States by focusing on low-income children in school-based settings. Vulnerable children often experience cultural, social, economic, structural, and geographic barriers when trying to access dental services in traditional dental office settings. These disparities have been discussed for more than a decade in multiple US Department of Health and Human Services publications. One solution is to revise dental practice acts to allow registered dental hygienists increased scope of services, expanded public health delivery opportunities, and decreased dentist supervision. We provide examples of how federally qualified health centers have implemented successful school-based dental models within the parameters of two state policies that allow registered dental hygienists varying levels of dentist supervision. Changes to dental practice acts at the state level allowing registered dental hygienists to practice with limited supervision in community settings, such as schools, may provide vulnerable populations greater access to screening and preventive services. We derive our recommendations from expert opinion.

Research Evidence Use in Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment Dental Medicaid Class Action Lawsuits.

Little is known about research evidence use in dental Medicaid class action lawsuits. This qualitative study develops a conceptual model to understand the role of dentists and how research evidence was used. Archival analyses were conducted and 15 key informants interviewed. Dentists had key roles requiring scientific expertise or clinical experience serving vulnerable populations. Most evidence was newly generated, not based on existing sources. Dentists were involved in all phases of the lawsuits. Future research should identify conditions fostering research evidence use in dental Medicaid lawsuits and whether high-quality research evidence use improves child health outcomes.

Provision of Oral Health Care to Children under Seven Covered by Bolsa Família Program. Is This a Reality?

UNLABELLED: Over the last decade, there has been a great improvement in the oral health of Brazilians. However, such a trend was not observed among five-year-old children. Dental caries are determined by the interplay between biological and behavioral factors that are shaped by broader socioeconomic determinants. It is well established that dental disease is concentrated in socially disadvantaged populations. To reduce social and health inequalities, the Brazilian government created Family Health Program (ESF), and the Bolsa Família Program, the Brazilian conditional cash transfer program (Bolsa Família Program). The aim of this study was to examine the oral health care and promotion provided by the Family Health Teams to children and caregivers covered by the Bolsa Família Program. Data was collected through interviews with three groups of participants: 1) dentists working for the Family Health Program; 2) Family Health Program professionals supervising the Bolsa Família Program health conditionalities (Bolsa Família Program supervisors); and 3) parents/caregivers of children covered by the Bolsa Família Program. A pretested questionnaire included sociodemographic, Bolsa Família Program, oral health promotion, dental prevention and dental treatment questions. The results showed that most dentists performed no systematic efforts to promote oral health care to children covered by the Bolsa Família Program (93.3%; n = 69) or to their parents/caregivers (74.3%; n = 55). Many dentists (33.8%) did not provide oral health care to children covered by the Bolsa Família Program because they felt it was beyond their responsibilities. Nearly all Bolsa Família Program supervisors (97.3%; n = 72) supported the inclusion of oral health care in the health conditionality of the Bolsa Família Program, but 82.4% (n = 61) stated they did not promote oral health activities to children covered by the Bolsa Família Program. Children in the routine care setting were more often referred to dentists than children covered by the Bolsa Familia Program (p≤0.001). Parents/caregivers (99.2%; n = 381) agreed that oral health care is important and 99.5% (n = 382) would like their children to be seen regularly. CONCLUSIONS: No collaboration was observed between the Bolsa Família Program and the Family Health Program with regard to the provision of oral health care. Making oral health care a Bolsa Família Program conditionality may reduce oral health care inequalities for extreme poor children under seven in Brazil.

Considerations in identifying pediatric dental neglect and the legal obligation to report.

BACKGROUND: Dental health care professionals play an important role as mandated advocates when health care neglect is suspected in children; however, there is some confusion around what constitutes child neglect. METHODS: The authors reviewed the dental literature for descriptors and definitions of neglect. They studied the individual state statutes to learn the protection afforded for both victims of neglect and for health care providers acting on behalf of such children. They also reviewed methods of action to address suspected neglect. RESULTS: The authors found confusion around what is or is not child neglect. Yet, dental professionals are tasked by the law, and by a moral code, to protect children from neglect. The authors offer a definition of neglect and suggested practice guidelines to assist the practitioner acting as a child's advocate. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians can use strategies to address the problem of child neglect. A digital data treatment registry may provide additional views of a child's health status. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: With a better understanding of the definition of neglect, strategies can be implemented for use by the dental team to address this problem of neglect and reduce its incidence.

The incidence and nature of complaints against dentists for the treatment of children in Israel from 1992-2011.

OBJECTIVES: Medical literature lacks information about complaints against dentists who treat children. The present study aimed to evaluate the reports filed to Medical Consultant International (MCI) regarding paediatric dentistry in 1992-2011. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Most dentists in Israel (85%) are obliged by their professional liability insurance policy to report adverse events to MCI. Reports were analysed using a structured form that included demographic details of the treating dentist, patients and parents, type of treatment, the result and the dentist's attitude. MCI dental consultants' decisions were evaluated by two specialists in paediatric dentistry. RESULTS: The number of complaints per year is increasing. Complaints involved maltreatment (33%), case mismanagement (25%) and complications that required additional treatment (26%). Communication was problematic in 60% of cases. Only 16.7% of complaints developed into an actual lawsuit. Most complaints were against female general practitioners and against dentists who worked in community dental clinics located in peripheral areas. Treating permanent teeth increased to 3.6 times the probability of developing into a lawsuit. 59% of event records had missing data. Seventy-five percent of the cases rose from elective treatments while 25% concerned emergency treatments. One third of the cases required additional treatment in a hospital i.e. abscess drainage, foreign body swallowing or other physical damages. CONCLUSIONS: Better case selection and documentation, better training of dentists who treat children and more appropriate attitude toward patients and parents, are likely to reduce the number of complaints.

The Affordable Care Act and Health Insurance Exchanges: Advocacy Efforts for Children's Oral Health.

PURPOSE: To evaluate legislative differences in defining the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) pediatric dental benefit and the role of pediatric advocates across states with different health insurance Exchanges. METHODS: Data were collected through public record investigation and confidential health policy expert interviews conducted at the state and federal level. RESULTS: Oral health policy change by the pediatric dental profession requires advocating for the mandatory purchase of coverage through the Exchange, tax subsidy contribution toward pediatric dental benefits, and consistent regulatory insurance standards for financial solvency, network adequacy and provider reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: The pediatric dental profession is uniquely positioned to lead change in oral health policy amidst health care reform through strengthening state-level formalized networks with organized dentistry and commercial insurance carriers.