Remote appointments in orthodontics and oral and maxillofacial surgery: Part 2 clinician perceptions.

IF 1.4 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Orthodontics Pub Date : 2024-12-20 DOI:10.1177/14653125241301450
Gurdeep Kaur Hans, Nigel Peter Hunt, Helen Travess
{"title":"Remote appointments in orthodontics and oral and maxillofacial surgery: Part 2 clinician perceptions.","authors":"Gurdeep Kaur Hans, Nigel Peter Hunt, Helen Travess","doi":"10.1177/14653125241301450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess clinician perceptions of and satisfaction with remote appointments in orthodontics and oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Orthodontic and OMFS departments in six acute NHS hospital Trusts in the UK.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 36 (a mixture of consultants, specialty doctors, registrars and therapists in both orthodontics and OMFS) completed responses were received.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Once piloted, questionnaires were disseminated across six hospital Trusts to orthodontic and OMFS clinicians. A combination of face-to-face (F2F) and online dissemination was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 28 of 36 (77.8%) questionnaires were completed, 75% (n = 21) by orthodontic clinicians and 25% (n = 7) by OMFS clinicians. A 100% (n = 21) response rate was achieved for orthodontic clinicians, compared to a 47% (n = 7/15) response rate for OMFS clinicians. High levels of clinician satisfaction were found for clinician confidentiality; however, concerns remained around patient confidentiality and the inability to conduct a clinical examination. The majority (n = 21, 75%) of clinicians felt that remote appointments had their place in the post-pandemic era, particularly for retainer reviews in orthodontics and biopsy results in OMFS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When appropriately triaged, the majority of remote appointments do save a face-to-face visit, and there is a place for remote platforms in both specialties going forward. However further research is required in the post-pandemic era to ascertain the full long-term applicability of remote orthodontic and OMFS consultations.</p>","PeriodicalId":16677,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthodontics","volume":" ","pages":"14653125241301450"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14653125241301450","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To assess clinician perceptions of and satisfaction with remote appointments in orthodontics and oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS).

Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study.

Setting: Orthodontic and OMFS departments in six acute NHS hospital Trusts in the UK.

Participants: A total of 36 (a mixture of consultants, specialty doctors, registrars and therapists in both orthodontics and OMFS) completed responses were received.

Method: Once piloted, questionnaires were disseminated across six hospital Trusts to orthodontic and OMFS clinicians. A combination of face-to-face (F2F) and online dissemination was used.

Results: A total of 28 of 36 (77.8%) questionnaires were completed, 75% (n = 21) by orthodontic clinicians and 25% (n = 7) by OMFS clinicians. A 100% (n = 21) response rate was achieved for orthodontic clinicians, compared to a 47% (n = 7/15) response rate for OMFS clinicians. High levels of clinician satisfaction were found for clinician confidentiality; however, concerns remained around patient confidentiality and the inability to conduct a clinical examination. The majority (n = 21, 75%) of clinicians felt that remote appointments had their place in the post-pandemic era, particularly for retainer reviews in orthodontics and biopsy results in OMFS.

Conclusion: When appropriately triaged, the majority of remote appointments do save a face-to-face visit, and there is a place for remote platforms in both specialties going forward. However further research is required in the post-pandemic era to ascertain the full long-term applicability of remote orthodontic and OMFS consultations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthodontics
Journal of Orthodontics DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
15.40%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthodontics has an international circulation, publishing papers from throughout the world. The official journal of the British Orthodontic Society, it aims to publish high quality, evidence-based, clinically orientated or clinically relevant original research papers that will underpin evidence based orthodontic care. It particularly welcomes reports on prospective research into different treatment methods and techniques but also systematic reviews, meta-analyses and studies which will stimulate interest in new developments. Regular features include original papers on clinically relevant topics, clinical case reports, reviews of the orthodontic literature, editorials, book reviews, correspondence and other features of interest to the orthodontic community. The Journal is published in full colour throughout.
期刊最新文献
Microleakage under metal and ceramic brackets after acid etch or laser surface treatment before bonding: An in vitro study. Remote appointments in Orthodontics and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Part 1 service evaluation. Remote appointments in orthodontics and oral and maxillofacial surgery: Part 2 clinician perceptions. Vertical and sagittal changes produced by an expander with differential opening versus a fan-type expander: A post-hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Clinical crown height changes in adult patients after non-extraction, orthodontic treatment: a retrospective cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1