NHS Dental Practices Research Articles

Complaints about NHS dental practices on the rise

Complaints about NHS dental practices on the rise

Complaints about NHS dental practices on the rise

Complaints about NHS dental practices on the rise

Back in the USSR? Queues return to NHS dental practices in England

Back in the USSR? Queues return to NHS dental practices in England

Assessing the reliability of automatic sentiment analysis tools on rating the sentiment of reviews of NHS dental practices in England.

BackgroundOnline reviews may act as a rich source of data to assess the quality of dental practices. Assessing the content and sentiment of reviews on a large scale is time consuming and expensive. Automation of the process of assigning sentiment to big data samples of reviews may allow for reviews to be used as Patient Reported Experience Measures for primary care dentistry.AimTo assess the reliability of three different online sentiment analysis tools (Amazon Comprehend DetectSentiment API (ACDAPI), Google and Monkeylearn) at assessing the sentiment of reviews of dental practices working on National Health Service contracts in the United Kingdom.MethodsA Python 3 script was used to mine 15800 reviews from 4803 unique dental practices on the NHS.uk websites between April 2018 –March 2019. A random sample of 270 reviews were rated by the three sentiment analysis tools. These reviews were rated by 3 blinded independent human reviewers and a pooled sentiment score was assigned. Kappa statistics and polychoric evalutaiton were used to assess the level of agreement. Disagreements between the automated and human reviewers were qualitatively assessed.ResultsThere was good agreement between the sentiment assigned to reviews by the human reviews and ACDAPI (k = 0.660). The Google (k = 0.706) and Monkeylearn (k = 0.728) showed slightly better agreement at the expense of usability on a massive dataset. There were 33 disagreements in rating between ACDAPI and human reviewers, of which n = 16 were due to syntax errors, n = 10 were due to misappropriation of the strength of conflicting emotions and n = 7 were due to a lack of overtly emotive language in the text.ConclusionsThere is good agreement between the sentiment of an online review assigned by a group of humans and by cloud-based sentiment analysis. This may allow the use of automated sentiment analysis for quality assessment of dental service provision in the NHS.

An eReferral Management & Triage System for minor Oral surgery referrals from primary care dentists: a cost-effectiveness evaluation

ObjectiveOral surgery referrals from NHS dental practices are rising, increasing the pressures on available hospital resources. We assess if an electronic referral system with consultant or peer (general dental practitioner) led triage of patient referrals from general dental practices can effectively divert patients requiring minor oral surgery into specialist led primary care settings at a reduced cost whilst providing care of the same or enhanced quality. One year of no triage (all referrals treated in secondary care) was followed by one-year of consultant led triage, which in turn was followed by year of peer-led triage.MethodA health economic evaluation of all patient referrals from 27 UK dental practices for oral surgery procedures. The follow-up is over a three-year period at hospital dental services in two general hospitals, one dental hospital, and a single specialist oral surgeon based in two primary care practices. The evaluation is a comparison of mean outcomes in the hospitals and in specialist primary care dental services between the study periods (i.e. periods with and without the triage system). The main outcomes of interest are mean NHS cost saving per referral (costs to the NHS and costs to broader society), proportion of diverted referrals, case-mix of referrals and patient reports of the quality of dentistry services received at their referral destination.ResultsThe proportion of referrals diverted to specialist primary care was similar during both periods (45% under consultant-led triage and 43% under GDP-led triage). Statistically significant savings per referral diverted were found (£116.11 under consultant-led triage, £90.25 under GDP-led triage). There were no statistically significant changes in the case-mix of referrals. Cost savings varied according to the coding (and hence tariff) of referred cases by the provider hospitals. Patients reported similarly high levels of satisfaction scores for treatment in specialist primary care and secondary care settings.ConclusionsImplementation of electronic referral management in primary care, when combined with triage, led to appropriate diversions to specialist primary care. Although cost savings were realised by referral diversion these savings are dependent on the particular tariff allocation (coding) practices of provider hospitals.

Disparities in the geographic distribution of NHS general dental care services in England.

Objectives To assess the geographic distribution of NHS dental practices in England in relation to deprivation and rurality.Methods A total of 7,851 dental practices in England were included in this study against a population of 53,004,517 from 171,349 statistical areas. The practices were mapped using geographic information systems technology and integrated with census population data, the Index of Multiple Deprivation and the rural-urban classification.Results Results showed that 92.1% of children and adolescents, 91.8% of working-age adults and 88.8% of older adults lived within 2.5 km of a practice. In general, dental practices were not socioeconomically distributed; 99.7% of people from the most deprived areas lived close to a practice compared to 92.9% of people from the least deprived areas. However, when age groups were delineated, much higher proportions of deprived children and adolescents lived within 2.5 km distance from a dental service, while the opposite was true for the older age group (high proportions of the least deprived older adults lived within 2.5 km distance from a dental service). In rural areas, 54.8%, 54.3% and 53.5% of children and adolescents, working-age adults and older adults lived outside 2.5 km of a dental practice, respectively.Conclusions Disparities exist in the distribution of NHS dental practices in England. The need to increase spatial availability of dental practices in England is evident.

"Strong Teeth": an early-phase study to assess the feasibility of an oral health intervention delivered by dental teams to parents of young children

BackgroundTooth decay (caries) is a significant health burden in young children. There is strong evidence for the benefits of establishing appropriate home-based oral health behaviours in early childhood. Dental teams are well placed to provide this information and there is clear advice on what oral health information should be given to parents. However, research has shown that there is limited guidance, training and resources on how dental teams should deliver this advice. "Strong Teeth" is a complex oral health intervention, using evidence-based resources and training underpinned by behaviour change psychology, to support behaviour change conversations in dental practice. This early phase evaluation aims to assess the feasibility of this intervention, prior to a full-scale trial.MethodsThe study recruited 15 parents of children aged 0–2-years-old and 21 parents of children aged 3–5 years old, from five NHS dental practices across West Yorkshire. Participant demographics, self-reported brushing behaviours, dietary habits, a dental examination and three objective measures of toothbrushing were collected in a home-setting at baseline, then at 2-weeks and 2-months post-intervention. Recruitment, retention and intervention delivery were analysed as key process outcomes. Brushing habits were compared to national toothbrushing guidelines – the Delivering Better Oral Health toolkit (Public Health England).ResultsStrong Teeth was feasible to deliver in a General Dental Practice setting in 94% of cases. Feasibility of recruitment (37%) exceeded progression criterion, however retention of participants (75%) was below the progression criterion for the 0–2 age group. More than half of children recruited aged 3–5-years had caries experience (52%). Total compliance to toothbrushing guidance at baseline was low (28%) and increased after the intervention (52%), an improvement that was statistically significant. Dietary habits remained largely unchanged. Plaque scores significantly decreased in the 3–5-year-olds and toothbrushing duration increased in all age groups.Conclusion"Strong Teeth" intervention delivery and data collection in the home setting was feasible. There was a positive indication of impact on reported toothbrushing behaviours. Some amendments to study design, particularly relating to the inclusion of the 0–2-year-old group, should be considered before progression to a full trial.Trial registration ISRCTN Register: ISRCTN10709150. Registered retrospectively 24/7/2019.

Dental therapists compared with general dental practitioners for undertaking check-ups in low-risk patients: pilot RCT with realist evaluation

BackgroundMany dental ‘check-ups’ in the NHS result in no further treatment. The patient is examined by a dentist and returned to the recall list for a further check-up, commonly in 6 or 12 months’ time. As the oral health of regular dental attenders continues to improve, it is likely that an increasing number of these patients will be low risk and will require only a simple check-up in the future, with no further treatment. This care could be delivered by dental therapists. In 2013, the body responsible for regulating the dental profession, the General Dental Council, ruled that dental therapists could see patients directly and undertake check-ups and routine dental treatments (e.g. fillings). Using dental therapists to undertake check-ups on low-risk patients could help free resources to meet the future challenges for NHS dentistry.ObjectivesThe objectives were to determine the most appropriate design for a definitive study, the most appropriate primary outcome measure and recruitment and retention rates, and the non-inferiority margin. We also undertook a realist-informed process evaluation and rehearsed the health economic data collection tool and analysis.DesignA pilot randomised controlled trial over a 15-month period, with a realist-informed process evaluation. In parallel, we rehearsed the health economic evaluation and explored patients’ preferences to inform a preference elicitation exercise for a definitive study.SettingThe setting was NHS dental practices in North West England.ParticipantsA total of 217 low-risk patients in eight high-street dental practices participated.InterventionsThe current practice of using dentists to provide NHS dental check-ups (treatment as usual; the control arm) was compared with using dental therapists to provide NHS dental check-ups (the intervention arm).Main outcome measureThe main outcome measure was difference in the proportion of sites with bleeding on probing among low-risk patients. We also recorded the number of ‘cross-over’ referrals between dentists and dental therapists.ResultsNo differences were found in the health status of patients over the 15 months of the pilot trial, suggesting that non-inferiority is the most appropriate design. However, bleeding on probing suffered from ‘floor effects’ among low-risk patients, and recruitment rates were moderately low (39.7%), which suggests that an experimental design might not be the most appropriate. The theory areas that emerged from the realist-informed process evaluation were contractual, regulatory, institutional logistics, patients’ experience and logistics. The economic evaluation was rehearsed and estimates of cost-effectiveness made; potential attributes and levels that can form the basis of preference elicitation work in a definitive study were determined.LimitationsThe pilot was conducted over a 15-month period only, and bleeding on probing appeared to have floor effects. The number of participating dental practices was a limitation and the recruitment rate was moderate.ConclusionsNon-inferiority, floor effects and moderate recruitment rates suggest that a randomised controlled trial might not be the best evaluative design for a definitive study in this population. The process evaluation identified multiple barriers to the use of dental therapists in ‘high-street’ practices and added real value.Future workQuasi-experimental designs may offer more promise for a definitive study alongside further realist evaluation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN70032696.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Geospatial analysis of the urban and rural/remote distribution of dental services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

To address deficits in human resources for oral health data (HROH) in rural and remote areas in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by spatially profiling and modelling the distribution pattern of dental practices according to Health Boards. National Health Service (NHS) dental practices were located and mapped against population and rural-urban classifications of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, using Geographic Information System (GIS) tools. All data collected were at the smallest geographical statistical hierarchy level in each country, and population data were retrieved from the 2011 census. A total of 1,695 NHS dental practices were mapped against 27 Health Board regions. In Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, 18.3%, 18.7% and 7.7%, respectively, of the population living in the most remote areas resided within 2.5km of a dental practice. In each country, the Health Boards with the largest proportion of the population living more than 10km from a dental practice were the Western Isles (Scotland), Western Health and Social Care Trust (HSCT) (Northern Ireland) and Hywel Dda University Health Board (UHB) (Wales). In each country, the highest practice-to-population (PtP) ratios were found in Forth Valley (1:7,194) (Scotland), Southern HSCT (1:5,115) (Northern Ireland) and Hywel Dda UHB (Wales) (1:7,907). Dental services are distributed unequally between urban and rural areas. PtP ratios coupled with GIS analysis are important tools to improve HROH distribution.

Are NHS dental practices socioeconomically distributed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Aim To investigate the relationship between deprivation and distance to NHS dental providers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.Methods A total of 1,795 NHS dental practices were located at the smallest geographic areas for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to overlay the distribution of dental practices with areas graded by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and population census from 2011.Results In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, 15%, 17.8% and 27.5% of the population lived outside 2.5 km of an NHS dental practice, respectively. NHS dental clinics were distributed mostly among people that lived in IMD 1 and 5 areas across the respective deprivation measures of all three nations. There were negligible differences in area-based deprivation measures and NHS dental clinic distribution.Conclusion NHS dental practices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were not socioeconomically distributed, suggesting an equitable spatial availability of services based on need.

The impact of changing provider remuneration on clinical activity and quality of care: Evaluation of a pilot NHS contract in Northern Ireland.

A pilot NHS dental contract was introduced in Northern Ireland between 2015 and 2016, which involved changing the method for paying general dental practitioners working in the NHS from fee-for-service (FFS) to capitation-based payments, providing an opportunity for a robust evaluation. We investigated the impact of a change in payment methods on clinical activity and the quality of care provided. A difference-in-difference (DiD) evaluation was applied to clinical activity data from pilot NHS dental practices in Northern Ireland compared to matched control NHS practices and applied to a questionnaire survey of patient-rated outcomes of health outcomes and care quality. We estimated the impact on access to care, treatment activity levels, practice finances and patient-rated outcomes of care of a change from FFS to a capitation-based system for 1year, as well as the impact of a reversion back to FFS at the end of the pilot period. The monthly number of registered patients in the pilot practices increased more than the control practices during the capitation period, by 1.5 registrations per 1000 registered patients. The monthly reductions in the volumes of all treatments in the pilot practices during the capitation period were much larger than the control practices, with 175 fewer treatment items. All measures rapidly returned to baseline levels following reversion from capitation back to FFS. NHS income per month increased in pilot practices, by £5920 per month (calculated on FFS item cost basis) more than controls in the capitation period. The analysis of patient questionnaires suggest found that patients notice differences only in waiting times, skill-mix and number of radiographs, but not on other measures of healthcare process and quality. General dental practitioners working in the NHS respond rapidly and consistently to changes in provider payment methods. A move from FFS to a capitation-based system had little impact on access to care, but did produce large reductions in clinical activity and patient charge income. Patients noticed little change in the service they received. This shows that changes in remuneration contracts have the potential to meet policy goals, such as meeting the expectations of patients within a predictable cost envelope. However, it is unlikely that all policy goals can be met simply by changing payment methods. Therefore, work is also needed to identify and evaluate interventions that can complement changes in remuneration to achieve desirable outcomes.

Service Evaluation of Recording Jaw Registrations for Removable Partial Dentures in NHS General Dental Practices.

To establish the prevalence of jaw registrations being taken for removable partial dentures (RPDs) in primary dental NHS practices. 271 RPDs made by 16 general dental practitioners across four NHS dental practices were evaluated prospectively. The number of teeth replaced, whether jaw registration was undertaken, and the number of denture adjustment appointments were recorded. Telephone interviews with dental technicians were held to establish their preferred jaw registrations material. Jaw registrations were not carried out in 27% (n=72) of RPD. When jaw registration was recorded, 14% (n=28) required a further denture adjustment appointment. 64% (n=46) of dentures where jaw registration was not recorded required at least one further denture adjustment appointment. Dental technicians unanimously preferred a squash-bite wax block, with centre and canine positions marked and cast models secured with elastic bands. Overall, recording a jaw registration reduced the number of denture adjustment appointments required.

Comparing how patients value and respond to information on risk given in three different forms during dental check-ups: the PREFER randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThis study aims to compare patient preference for, and subsequent change in, oral health behaviour for three forms of risk information given at dental check-ups (verbal advice compared to verbal advice accompanied by a traffic light (TL) risk card; or compared to verbal advice with a quantitative light fluorescence (QLF) photograph of the patient’s mouth).MethodsA multi-centre, parallel-group, patient-randomised clinical trial was undertaken between August 2015 and September 2016. Computer-generated random numbers using block stratification allocated patients to three arms. The setting was four English NHS dental practices. Participants were 412 dentate adults at medium/high risk of poor oral health. Patients rated preference and willingness to pay (WTP) for the three types of information. The primary outcome was WTP. After receiving their check-up, patients received the type of information according to their group allocation. Follow-up was by telephone/e-mail at 6 and 12 months. Mean and median WTP for the three arms were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Tobit regression models were used to investigate factors affecting WTP and preference for information type. Secondary outcomes included self-rated oral health and change in oral health behaviours (tooth-brushing, sugar consumption and smoking) and were investigated using multivariate generalised linear mixed models.ResultsA total of 412 patients were randomised (138 to verbal, 134 to TL and 140 to QLF); 391 revisited their WTP scores after the check-up (23 withdrew). Follow-up data were obtained for 185 (46%) participants at 6 months and 153 (38%) participants at 12 months. Verbal advice was the first preference for 51% (209 participants), QLF for 35% (145 participants) and TL for 14% (58 participants). TL information was valued lower than either verbal or QLF information (p < 0.0001). Practice attended was predictive of verbal as first preference, and being older. Practice attended, preferring TL the most and having fewer than 20 teeth were associated with increased WTP; and living in a relatively deprived area or having low literacy decreased WTP. There were no significant differences in behaviour change on follow-up.ConclusionsAlthough a new NHS dental contract based on TL risk stratification is being tested, patients prefer the usual verbal advice. There was also a practice effect which will needs to be considered for successful implementation of this government policy.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN71242343. Retrospectively registered on 27 March 2018.

Presenting patients with information on their oral health risk: the PREFER three-arm RCT and ethnography

BackgroundA new NHS dental practice contract is being tested using a traffic light (TL) system that categorises patients as being at red (high), amber (medium) or green (low) risk of poor oral health. This is intended to increase the emphasis on preventative dentistry, including giving advice on ways patients can improve their oral health. Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence (QLF™) cameras (Inspektor Research Systems BV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) also potentially offer a vivid portrayal of information on patients’ oral health.MethodsSystematic review– objective: to investigate how patients value and respond to different forms of information on health risks. Methods: electronic searches of nine databases, hand-searching of eight specialist journals and backwards and forwards citation-chasing followed by duplicate title, abstract- and paper-screening and data-extraction. Inclusion criteria limited studies to personalised information on risk given to patients as part of their health care.Randomised controlled trial (RCT)– setting: NHS dental practice. Objective: to investigate patients’ preferences for and response to different forms of information about risk given at check-ups. Design: a pragmatic, multicentred, three-arm, parallel-group, patient RCT. Participants: adults with a high/medium risk of poor oral health attending NHS dental practices. Interventions: (1) information given verbally supported by a card showing the patient’s TL risk category; (2) information given verbally supported by a QLF photograph of the patient’s mouth. The control was verbal information only (usual care). Main outcome measures: primary outcome – median valuation for the three forms of information measured by willingness to pay (WTP). Secondary outcomes included toothbrushing frequency and duration, dietary sugar intake, smoking status, self-rated oral health, a basic periodontal examination, Plaque Percentage Index and the number of tooth surfaces affected by caries (as measured by QLF).Qualitative study– an ethnography involving observations of 368 dental appointments and interviews with patients and dental teams.ResultsSystematic review – the review identified 12 papers (nine of which were RCTs). Eight studies involved the use of computerised risk assessments in primary care. Intervention effects were generally modest, even with respect to modifying risk perceptions rather than altering behaviour or clinical outcomes. RCT – the trial found that 51% of patients identified verbal information as their most preferred form, 35% identified QLF as most preferred and 14% identified TL information as most preferred. The median WTP for TL was about half that for verbal information alone. Although at 6 and 12 months patients reported taking less sugar in drinks, and at 12 months patients reported longer toothbrushing, there was no difference by information group. Qualitative study – there was very little explicit risk talk. Lifestyle discussions were often cursory to avoid causing shame or embarrassment to patients.LimitationsOnly 45% of patients were retained in the trial at 6 months and 31% were retained at 12 months. The trial was conducted in four dental practices, and five dental practices were involved in the qualitative work.ConclusionsPatients prefer personal, detailed verbal advice on oral health at their check-up. A new NHS dental practice contract using TL categorisation might make this less likely.Future workResearch on how to deliver, within time constraints, effective advice to patients on preventing poor oral health. More research on ‘risk work’ in wider clinical settings is also needed.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN71242343.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Can we deliver effective alcohol-related brief advice in general dental practice?

Design Two-arm cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial. Intervention Twelve NHS dental practices were randomised to the intervention and control arms. Patients consuming alcohol above the recommended levels were eligible to participate in the trial. The intervention was delivered by the dentists in the participating practices and entailed the delivery of a short tailored alcohol-related advice tool and a leaflet, which included information about the effects of alcohol on oral health and the benefits of reducing alcohol intake to both oral and general health. Patients in the control arm were given a mouth cancer prevention leaflet only. The level of alcohol consumption was measured by validated tools (AUDIT: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and AUTID-C: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test for Consumption). The patients were followed-up after six months by a telephone interview. Outcome Measures The feasibility trial outcomes were the recruitment, retention, eligibility and delivery rate. The primary outcome of the trial was the impact of the intervention in lowering the level of alcohol consumption as captured by the AUDIT tool. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and alcohol consumption and abstinence in the last 90 days. The acceptability of the intervention was also assessed.Results The recruitment and retention rate were high (95.4% and 76.9% respectively). At the follow-up, participants in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to report a longer abstinence period (3.2 vs. 2.3 weeks respectively, P = 0.04). Non-significant differences in AUDIT (44.9% vs. 59.8% AUDIT positive respectively, P = 0.053) and AUDIT-C between baseline and follow-up (-0.67 units vs. -0.29 units respectively, P = 0.058) were observed. Results from the process evaluation indicated that the intervention and study procedures were acceptable to dentists and patients.Conclusion According to this study, dentists offering screening for alcohol misuse and brief advice in a primary dental care setting is not only feasible but also well-welcomed by both the dental team and patients.

Three quarters of NHS dental practices failing to fill vacancies

Three quarters of NHS dental practices failing to fill vacancies

Alcohol Screening and Brief Advice in NHS General Dental Practices: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

To assess the feasibility and acceptability of screening for alcohol misuse and delivering brief advice to eligible patients attending NHS dental practices in London. A two-arm cluster randomized controlled feasibility trial was conducted. Twelve dental practices were recruited and randomized to intervention and control arms. Participants attending for a dental check were recruited into the study and were eligible if they consumed alcohol above recommended levels assessed by the AUDIT-C screening tool. All eligible participants were asked to complete a baseline socio-demographic questionnaire. Six months after the completion of baseline measures, participants were contacted via telephone by a researcher masked to their allocation status. The full AUDIT tool was then administered. Alcohol consumption in the last 90 days was also assessed using the Form 90. A process evaluation assessed the acceptability of the intervention. Over a 7-month period, 229 participants were recruited (95.4% recruitment rate) and at the 6 months follow-up, 176 participants were assessed (76.9% retention rate). At the follow-up, participants in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to report a longer abstinence period (3.2 vs. 2.3 weeks respectively, P = 0.04) and non-significant differences in AUDIT (44.9% vs. 59.8% AUDIT positive respectively, P = 0.053) and AUDIT C difference between baseline and follow-up (-0.67 units vs. -0.29 units respectively, P = 0.058). Results from the process evaluation indicated that the intervention and study procedures were acceptable to dentists and patients. This study has demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of dentists screening for alcohol misuse and providing brief advice.

Presenting information on dental risk: PREFER study protocol for a randomised controlled trial involving patients receiving a dental check-up.

IntroductionA new dental contract being tested in England places patients into traffic light categories according to risk (Red = High risk). This reflects health policy which emphasises patients' shared responsibility for their health, and a growing expectation that clinicians discuss health risk in consultations. Alongside this, there are technological developments such as scans and photographs which have generated new, vivid imagery which may be used to communicate risk information to patients. However, there is little evidence as to whether the form in which risk information is given is important.MethodsThe PREFER study is a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm, patient-level randomised controlled trial, based in four NHS dental practices, from which 400 high/medium risk patients will be recruited. The study compares three ways of communicating risk information at dental check-ups: 1) verbal only (usual care); 2) a Traffic Light graphic with verbal explanation; 3) a Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence (QLF) photograph showing, for example, patches of red fluorescence where dental plaque has been present for two days or more (with a verbal explanation). The study assesses patient preferences using the economic preference-based valuation methodology Willingness-to-Pay (WTP). Any changes in oral self-care (for example in tooth-brushing), will be measured by self-report, and clinical outcome data collected by clinicians and extracted from QLF photographs. Predictors and moderators of any behaviour change will be explored using demographic characteristics and psychological variables from the Extended Parallel Process Model. A cost-benefit framework will explore the financial implications for NHS dentistry of the three risk presentation methods.

Adequacy and clarity of information on out-of-hours emergency dental services at Greater Manchester NHS dental practices: a cross-sectional study.

Objective To perform an evaluation of the information given to patients seeking emergency dental services during out-of-hours periods in Greater Manchester.Method This is a cross-sectional study. A list of all NHS dental practices in Greater Manchester was obtained from the NHS website. The investigators then accessed websites and voicemails of all practices to assess the information given to patients.Results The study shows that most practices have voicemail, which includes varying information on how to access emergency dental services during out-of-hours periods. Few of those included advice on the management of common dental emergencies. On the other hand, the majority of practices did not have websites. From those who included advice on how to access emergency dental services during out-of-hours periods on how to manage common dental emergencies on their websites, the information was easy to find.Conclusion The current information could be improved by ensuring the inclusion of essential details. Websites would help by including more details. In turn, this could help to reduce the number of inappropriate presentations to A&E departments.

A randomised controlled trial to measure the effects and costs of a dental caries prevention regime for young children attending primary care dental services: the Northern Ireland Caries Prevention In Practice (NIC-PIP) trial.

Dental caries is the most common disease of childhood. The NHS guidelines promote preventative care in dental practices, particularly for young children. However, the cost-effectiveness of this policy has not been established. To measure the effects and costs of a composite fluoride intervention designed to prevent caries in young children attending dental services. The study was a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with an allocation ratio of 1 : 1. Randomisation was by clinical trials unit, using randomised permuted blocks. Children/families were not blinded; however, outcome assessment was blinded to group assessment. The study took place in 22 NHS dental practices in Northern Ireland, UK. The study participants were children aged 2-3 years, who were caries free at baseline. The intervention was composite in nature, comprising a varnish containing 22,600 parts per million (p.p.m.) fluoride, a toothbrush and a 50-ml tube of toothpaste containing 1450 p.p.m. fluoride; plus standardised, evidence-based prevention advice provided at 6-monthly intervals over 3 years. The control group received the prevention advice alone. The primary outcome measure was conversion from caries-free to caries-active states. Secondary outcome measures were the number of decayed, missing or filled tooth surfaces in primary dentition (dmfs) in caries-active children, the number of episodes of pain, the number of extracted teeth and the costs of care. Adverse reactions (ARs) were recorded. A total of 1248 children (624 randomised to each group) were recruited and 1096 (549 in the intervention group and 547 in the control group) were included in the final analyses. A total of 87% of the intervention children and 85% of control children attended every 6-month visit (p = 0.77). In total, 187 (34%) children in the intervention group converted to caries active, compared with 213 (39%) in the control group [odds ratio (OR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.04; p = 0.11]. The mean number of tooth surfaces affected by caries was 7.2 in the intervention group, compared with 9.6 in the control group (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the number of episodes of pain between groups (p = 0.81). However, 164 out of the total of 400 (41%) children who converted to caries active reported toothache, compared with 62 out of 696 (9%) caries-free children (OR 7.1 95% CI 5.1 to 9.9; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of teeth extracted in caries-active children (p = 0.95). Ten children in the intervention group had ARs of a minor nature. The average direct dental care cost was £155.74 for the intervention group and £48.21 for the control group over 3 years (p < 0.05). The mean cost per carious surface avoided over the 3 years was estimated at £251.00. The usual limitations of a trial such as generalisability and understanding the underlying reasons for the outcomes apply. There is no mean willingness-to-pay threshold available to enable assessment of value for money. A statistically significant effect could not be demonstrated for the primary outcome. Once caries develop, pain is likely. There was a statistically significant difference in dmfs in caries-active children in favour of the intervention. Although adequately powered, the effect size of the intervention was small and of questionable clinical and economic benefit. Future work should assess the caries prevention effects of interventions to reduce sugar consumption at the population and individual levels. Interventions designed to arrest the disease once it is established need to be developed and tested in practice. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36180119 and EudraCT 2009-010725-39. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.