A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

An Analysis of Electronic Primary Dental Practice Tooth Wear Referrals. | LitMetric

An Analysis of Electronic Primary Dental Practice Tooth Wear Referrals.

Prim Dent J

Professor, Consultant in Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London.

Published: March 2021

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study evaluated tooth wear referrals from general dental practitioners to specialists in Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, analyzing data from June to October 2019.
  • About 32% of the 671 referrals were for tooth wear, predominantly from males with a median age of 52, and most referrals lacked adequate information such as causes and clinical photos.
  • 47% of the referrals were rejected, highlighting the need for improved referral quality, including mandatory fields and submission of clinical photographs and tooth wear indices.

Article Abstract

We evaluated the quality of general dental practitioner (GDP) tooth wear (TW) referrals to secondary care services in Kent, Surrey and Sussex.Prospective consecutive referrals received via an electronic pathway were assessed from 1 June to 30 October 2019. Reasons for referral, patient demographics, quality of referral, opinion of the triaging clinician and outcome were assessed.Of 671 referrals, 32% were for TW. Males were referred more commonly (1.7:1.0). The median age was 52. Patients were more likely to be referred from distant locations than places closer to the referral centre (p<0.001). Only 55% of referrals suggested a cause for the TW, 33% provided a clinical photograph and 1% recorded a tooth wear index of any type. Referring clinicians most commonly cited attrition as reason for referral (p<0.001). Those under 40 years were referred for erosion (p=0.001) and those over 40 years, attrition (p=0.019). The triaging clinician was more likely to allocate a tooth wear score of three for those under 40 years and a score of four for over 40 years (p<0.001). 47% of referrals were rejected. Males and referrals with photographs were more likely to be accepted for treatment (p=0.017 and p<0.001, respectively).There is a high demand for specialist TW services. The number of referrals being rejected has not changed using the electronic referral system. We advocate the inclusion of mandatory fields for completion by GDPs as well as compulsory clinical photographs and tooth wear indices (Smith and Knight Tooth Wear Index or a basic erosive wear examination - BEWE index).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050168420980960DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

tooth wear
8
wear referrals
8
analysis electronic
4
electronic primary
4
primary dental
4
dental practice
4
practice tooth
4
referrals
4
referrals evaluated
4
evaluated quality
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!