40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic review of patient safety interventions in dentistry

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The concept of patient safety in dentistry is in its infancy, with little knowledge about the effectiveness of tools or interventions developed to improve patient safety or to minimise the occurrence of adverse events.

          Methods

          The aim of this qualitative systematic review was to search the academic and grey literature to identify and assess tools or interventions used in dental care settings to maintain or improve patient safety. All study designs were included from all dental care settings. Outcome measures were: patient safety, harm prevention, risk minimization, patient satisfaction and patient acceptability, professional acceptability, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Quality assessments were performed on the included studies based on CASP tools. Further analysis was undertaken to discover whether any of the tools had been trialled or verified by the authors, or by subsequent authors.

          Results

          Following abstract screening, and initial qualitative synthesis, nine studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria with 31 being excluded following initial analysis. Tools identified included: checklists (4 studies), reporting systems (3), the use of electronic notes (1) and trigger tools (1). Grey literature searching did not identify any further appropriate studies. In terms of study design, there were observational studies including audit cycles (5 studies), epidemiological studies (3) and prospective cluster randomised clinical trials (1). The quality of the studies varied and none of their outcomes were verified by other researchers. The tools identified have the potential to be used for measuring and improving patient safety in dentistry, with two surgical safety checklists demonstrating a reduction in erroneous dental extractions to nil following their introduction. Reporting systems provide epidemiological data, however, it is not known whether they lead to any improvement in patient safety. The one study on trigger tools demonstrates a 50 % positive predictive value for safety incidents. It is not clear as to what impact the introduction of electronic guidelines has on patient safety outcomes.

          Conclusions

          This systematic review finds that the only interventions in dentistry that reduce or minimise adverse events are surgical safety checklists. We believe this to be the first systematic review in this field; it demonstrates the need for further research into patient safety in dentistry across several domains: epidemiological, conceptual understanding and patient and practitioner involvement.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12903-015-0136-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The ecology of medical care revisited.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Health information technology: an updated systematic review with a focus on meaningful use.

            Incentives offered by the U.S. government have spurred marked increases in use of health information technology (IT). To update previous reviews and examine recent evidence that relates health IT functionalities prescribed in meaningful use regulations to key aspects of health care. English-language articles in PubMed from January 2010 to August 2013. 236 studies, including pre-post and time-series designs and clinical trials that related the use of health IT to quality, safety, or efficiency. Two independent reviewers extracted data on functionality, study outcomes, and context. Fifty-seven percent of the 236 studies evaluated clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry, whereas other meaningful use functionalities were rarely evaluated. Fifty-six percent of studies reported uniformly positive results, and an additional 21% reported mixed-positive effects. Reporting of context and implementation details was poor, and 61% of studies did not report any contextual details beyond basic information. Potential for publication bias, and evaluated health IT systems and outcomes were heterogeneous and incompletely described. Strong evidence supports the use of clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry. However, insufficient reporting of implementation and context of use makes it impossible to determine why some health IT implementations are successful and others are not. The most important improvement that can be made in health IT evaluations is increased reporting of the effects of implementation and context. Office of the National Coordinator.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patient safety research: an overview of the global evidence.

              , D Bates, A Jha (2010)
              Unsafe medical care may cause substantial morbidity and mortality globally, despite imprecise estimates of the magnitude of the problem. To better understand the extent and nature of the problem of unsafe care, the WHO World Alliance for Patient Safety commissioned an overview of the world's literature on patient safety research. Major patient safety topics were identified through a consultative and investigative process and were categorised into the framework of structure, process and outcomes of unsafe care. Lead experts examined current evidence and identified major knowledge gaps relating to topics in developing, transitional and developed nations. The report was reviewed by internal and external experts and underwent improvements based on the feedback. Twenty-three major patient safety topics were examined. Much of the evidence of the outcomes of unsafe care is from developed nations, where prevalence studies demonstrate that between 3% and 16% of hospitalised patients suffer harm from medical care. Data from transitional and developing countries also suggest substantial harm from medical care. However, considerable gaps in knowledge about the structural and process factors that underlie unsafe care globally make solutions difficult to identify, especially in resource-poor settings. Harm from medical care appears to pose a substantial burden to the world's population. However, much of the evidence base comes from developed nations. Understanding the scope of and solutions for unsafe care for the rest of the world is a critical component of delivering safe, effective care to all of the world's citizens.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Edmund.bailey@manchester.ac.uk , edmund.bailey@uclh.nhs.uk
                martin.tickle@manchester.ac.uk
                Stephen.campbell@manchester.ac.uk
                lucy.omalley@manchester.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Oral Health
                BMC Oral Health
                BMC Oral Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6831
                28 November 2015
                28 November 2015
                2015
                : 15
                : 152
                Affiliations
                [ ]NIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Population Health - Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, 7th Floor: Williamson Building, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
                [ ]School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, J R Moore Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
                Article
                136
                10.1186/s12903-015-0136-1
                4662809
                26613736
                0874e54b-678a-4aac-a4f4-4d5c0d459975
                © Bailey et al. 2015

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 17 April 2015
                : 11 November 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Dentistry
                patient harm,primary health care,oral surgery,health services research,standard of care,epidemiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article