Audit of dental practice record-keeping: a PCT-coordinated clinical audit by Worcestershire dentists.

Andrew Cole, Alan McMichael
{"title":"Audit of dental practice record-keeping: a PCT-coordinated clinical audit by Worcestershire dentists.","authors":"Andrew Cole,&nbsp;Alan McMichael","doi":"10.1308/135576109788634296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Unlabelled: </strong>A collaborative audit of clinical record-keeping standards was performed among Worcestershire dentists.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>Its aims were to improve the quality of National Health Service (NHS) patient care and to assist dentists to perform well during Dental Reference Service practice visits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Worcestershire dentists with NHS contracts were invited to take part in this audit. Each dentist audited a random selection of 30 of their dental clinical records against a common framework comprising eight domains. Record-keeping, and the presence or absence of key diagnostic and treatment planning details were recorded. Grading was applied in four categories, in which grades 1 and 2 were good (1) and adequate (2), captured on data-collection sheets and centrally analysed for frequency of each grade.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of a total of 184 Worcestershire general dental practitioners, 161 (87.5%) submitted usable responses. The audit revealed wide variation between dentists in clinical record-keeping. The recording of soft tissues (36% below grade 2), periodontal status (30%), radiographic review (27%), and note-taking (25%) all fell below the standard that had been set (brackets show proportion not meeting the standard).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results provided baseline information about the standard of record-keeping in NHS dental practices in Worcestershire. The collaborative nature of the audit enabled dissemination of individual results to participants, to facilitate comparison (anonymously) against their peers. The audit provided impetus for the Primary Care Trust (PCT) to arrange postgraduate education on record-keeping and to raise awareness among local dentists about record-keeping. The subsequent report to dentists explored the record-keeping standards expected during practice inspections undertaken by the Dental Reference Service. Worcestershire PCT's method of collaborative dental audit could potentially replace the previous national programme of dental audit, formerly coordinated locally.</p>","PeriodicalId":79454,"journal":{"name":"Primary dental care : journal of the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK)","volume":"16 3","pages":"85-93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary dental care : journal of the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners (UK)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1308/135576109788634296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Unlabelled: A collaborative audit of clinical record-keeping standards was performed among Worcestershire dentists.

Aims: Its aims were to improve the quality of National Health Service (NHS) patient care and to assist dentists to perform well during Dental Reference Service practice visits.

Methods: Worcestershire dentists with NHS contracts were invited to take part in this audit. Each dentist audited a random selection of 30 of their dental clinical records against a common framework comprising eight domains. Record-keeping, and the presence or absence of key diagnostic and treatment planning details were recorded. Grading was applied in four categories, in which grades 1 and 2 were good (1) and adequate (2), captured on data-collection sheets and centrally analysed for frequency of each grade.

Results: Out of a total of 184 Worcestershire general dental practitioners, 161 (87.5%) submitted usable responses. The audit revealed wide variation between dentists in clinical record-keeping. The recording of soft tissues (36% below grade 2), periodontal status (30%), radiographic review (27%), and note-taking (25%) all fell below the standard that had been set (brackets show proportion not meeting the standard).

Conclusions: The results provided baseline information about the standard of record-keeping in NHS dental practices in Worcestershire. The collaborative nature of the audit enabled dissemination of individual results to participants, to facilitate comparison (anonymously) against their peers. The audit provided impetus for the Primary Care Trust (PCT) to arrange postgraduate education on record-keeping and to raise awareness among local dentists about record-keeping. The subsequent report to dentists explored the record-keeping standards expected during practice inspections undertaken by the Dental Reference Service. Worcestershire PCT's method of collaborative dental audit could potentially replace the previous national programme of dental audit, formerly coordinated locally.

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
牙科执业记录的审计:伍斯特郡牙医的pct协调临床审计。
未标记:在伍斯特郡牙医中进行了临床记录保存标准的协作审计。目的:其目的是提高国民保健服务(NHS)病人护理的质量,并协助牙医在牙科参考服务实践访问期间表现良好。方法:邀请伍斯特郡与NHS签约的牙医参加本次审核。每个牙医审计随机选择的30个牙科临床记录对一个共同的框架,包括八个领域。记录保存,记录关键诊断和治疗计划细节的存在或缺失。评分分为四个类别,其中1级和2级为良好(1)和适当(2),记录在数据收集表上,并集中分析每个等级的频率。结果:在184名伍斯特郡全科牙科医生中,161名(87.5%)提交了可用的回复。审计显示牙医在临床记录保存方面存在很大差异。软组织记录(36%低于2级)、牙周状况(30%)、x线检查(27%)和笔记记录(25%)均低于设定的标准(括号表示不符合标准的比例)。结论:结果提供了伍斯特郡NHS牙科诊所记录保存标准的基线信息。审计的协作性质使个人结果能够传播给参与者,以便与同行进行(匿名)比较。这次审计为初级保健信托基金(PCT)提供了动力,以安排有关记录保存的研究生教育,并提高当地牙医对记录保存的认识。随后向牙医提交的报告探讨了牙科参考服务所进行的执业检查期间预期的记录保存标准。伍斯特郡PCT的合作牙科审计方法有可能取代以前的国家牙科审计方案,以前是地方协调的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reflections on the Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK) at 20 years. A patient's view of dentistry 20 years ago, now, and in 20 years' time. Primary Dental Care: past, present and future. Primary dental care: time to revise the definition? Prim Dent Care 2000. 7(3):93-96. Dental specialist lists: are they necessary?
×
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