Silver Diamine Fluoride Protocol for Reducing Preventable Dental Hospitalisations in Victorian Children

IntroductionThis study was designed to assess whether a dental caries management protocol combining a single application of 38% silver diamine fluoride (SDF) with comprehensive oral health education will successfully divert high-risk children from dental treatment under dental general anaesthesia (DGA), arrest active caries in primary teeth, and improve parent-reported child oral health–related quality of life (OHRQoL).MethodsChildren aged 2 to 10 years, who attended two public dental agencies in Victoria, Australia, and were unable to tolerate restorative treatments in the clinic setting, elected to participate in either a 38% SDF intervention protocol or, alternatively, referral for DGA. Follow-up examinations were completed at 6 months to assess caries progression, decayed missing filled tooth index, PUFA index (pulpal involvement, ulceration, fistula, abscess), DGA referral rates, and OHRQoL (Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale [ECOHIS]).ResultsOf the total sample, 89.5% of children (n = 102) [mean (SD) age, 4.1 (1.0) years] with 401 active carious lesions elected to participate in the 38% SDF protocol; 10.5% (n = 12) of parents opted for referral for treatment under DGA. The proportion of active caries subsequently arrested at follow-up (number of arrested lesions/number of lesions treated) was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.87). There was an 88% reduction in referrals for DGA in eligible children over the 6-month period. The 38% SDF intervention group showed a significant improvement in ECOHIS scores at follow-up (P < .001).DiscussionAdoption of the 38% SDF intervention protocol resulted in a significant reduction in the rate of preventable dental hospitalisations. Most parents opted against referral for DGA. Parent-reported OHRQoL for children improved significantly.     

Did the March 2020 lockdown cause an increase in patients presenting to the emergency department with odontogenic pain and infection? A single centre,retrospective analysis

On the 25 March 2020 the Chief Dental Officer (CDO) published guidance to restrict the provision of routine dental care in England due to the rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (COVID-19). We analysed the impact of the pandemic on the number of patients presenting with odontogenic pain and infection to the emergency department (ED) of an urban-based teaching hospital, the Bristol Royal Infirmary (BRI). Furthermore, we investigated the severity of infection at first presentation to the ED. The study period encompassed three phases that represented the stages of pandemic restrictions: phase 1 prior to lockdown measures, with no restrictions to dental practice; phase 2 during the government lockdown, with the severest restrictions on dental practices; and phase 3 following the ease of lockdown measures, with return to limited dental services. Data were collected retrospectively from electronic patient records (EPR) regarding adult patients presenting to the ED with dental pain. The rate of presentations (per week) was calculated for each timepoint and compared. A severity score was assigned to each patient using a grading system based on signs of clinical infection and treatment modality. Patients' presentations were analysed at each phase of the pandemic. There was a 42.8% increase in attendance with oral facial pain and infection to ED from phases 1 to 3. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in restrictions to routine primary dental care services, which were deemed necessary to reduce the spread of the virus. However, this increased demand on secondary care services, as patients increasingly struggled to access primary dental care to manage dental pain.     

《医疗质量管理办法》中医疗质量概念及相关问题探讨

采用文献复习和实证研究经验的方法对《医疗质量管理办法》中涉及的医疗质量概念及相关问题进行探讨。《医疗质量管理办法》中的医疗质量的定义存在重大缺失,没有涉及医疗服务的结果,特别是患者安全。医疗质量的定义应与国际相关权威机构保持一致,应高度重视医疗服务的结果,特别是患者安全。     

慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医与家庭动力学的相关性研究

目的研究慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医与家庭动力学的相关性,希望能够为慢阻肺急性加重期患者拟定护理措施提供科学依据。方法选取2017年1月-2019年12月我院240例诊断为慢阻肺急性加重期的患者为研究对象。根据患者入院就医的时间进行分组,时间≥24h的延迟就医的患者为观察组,时间<24h的及时就医患者为对照组。结果两组患者在文化水平、家庭年收入、在职状态、医疗保险和婚姻状况和APACHEⅡ评分比较(P<0.05)。观察组患者疾病观念、个性化、系统逻辑和家庭氛围得分比对照组高(P<0.05)。Pearman的相关性分析结果显示:慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医时间与各个层面分数以及家庭动力总分呈现负相关性(P<0.05)。应变量为延迟就医为应变量,患者的一般资料为自变量,经Logistic回归分析结果表明:延迟就医的影响因素为文化水平、家庭动力评分、职业状态、家庭收入、婚姻状况和APACHEⅡ评分。结论慢阻肺急性加重期患者家庭动力总分与疾病观念、个性化、系统逻辑和家庭氛围得分与延迟就医时间呈现负相关性,患者延迟就医的影响因素是家庭动力学评分。     

The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results

ObjectivesExisting measures for estimating quality-adjusted life-years are mostly limited to health-related quality of life. This article presents an overview of the development the EQ-HWB (EQ Health and Wellbeing), which is a measure that encompasses health and wellbeing.MethodsStages: (1) Establishing domains through reviews of the qualitative literature informed by a conceptual framework. (2) Generation and selection of items to cover the domains. (3) Face validation of these items through qualitative interviews with 168 patients, social care users, general population, and carers across 6 countries (Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, United Kingdom, United States). (4) Extensive psychometric testing of candidate items (using classical, factor analysis, and item response theory methods) on > 4000 respondents in the 6 countries. Stakeholders were consulted throughout.ResultsA total of 32 subdomains grouped into 7 high-level domains were identified from the qualitative literature and 97 items generated to cover them. Face validation eliminated 36 items, modified 14, and added 3. Psychometric testing of 64 items found little difference in missing data or problems with response distribution, the conceptual model was confirmed except in China, and most items performed well in the item response theory in all countries. Evidence was presented to stakeholders in 2 rounds of consultation to inform the final selection of items for the EQ-HWB (25-item) and the short version of EQ-HWB (9-items).ConclusionsEQ-HWB measures have been developed internationally for evaluating interventions in health, public health, and social care including the impact on patients, social care users, and carers.