Journal of Dentistry
Volume 36, Issue 6 , Pages 435-443, June 2008

Routine oral examinations in primary care: Which predictors determine what is done?

A prospective clinical case recording study

  • Theodorus G. Mettes

      Affiliations

    • Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, College of Oral Sciences, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, College of Oral Sciences, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 24 3616629; fax: +31 24 3540265.
  • ,
  • Wil J.M. van der Sanden

      Affiliations

    • Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, College of Oral Sciences, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Henk G. Mokkink

      Affiliations

    • Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Centre for Quality of Care Research (WOK), Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Michel Wensing

      Affiliations

    • Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Centre for Quality of Care Research (WOK), Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Richard P.T.M. Grol

      Affiliations

    • Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Centre for Quality of Care Research (WOK), Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Alphons J.M. Plasschaert

      Affiliations

    • Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, College of Oral Sciences, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Received 23 November 2007; received in revised form 27 February 2008; accepted 28 February 2008.

Abstract 

Objectives

Elements of a routine oral examination (ROE) in dental practice may be determined by patients’ oral status, as recommended by prevailing knowledge, as well as by other factors. Our aim was to identify patient and GDP characteristics associated with aspects of oral health assessment (OHA) and clinical management (CM) in patients with various oral conditions.

Methods

A prospective observational study was performed, based on clinical case recording of 1059 ROEs by 128 GDPs. A clinical case recording form was used to record oral health assessment, diagnoses made, and clinical management for each ROE. Multilevel logistic regression analyses (with random coefficients) were performed.

Results

Overall, ‘patients’ age’ in domains OHA as well as CM was the most salient predictor, while ‘positive attitude to periodontal screening’ showed to be a prominent GDP-factor. Patient characteristics mostly involved in OHA and CM were ‘disease-free period’ (odds ratios from 0.21 to 0.66), ‘oral health compliance’ (odds ratios from 0.32 to 0.65) and ‘risk for periodontal disease’ (odds ratios from 1.79 to 4.97).

‘Continuing professional development’ (odds ratios from 2.54 to 4.95), ‘mean reading hours’ (odds ratios from 2.25 to 4.48) and ‘cooperation with peers’ (odds ratios from 2.78 to 3.72) showed to be significant GDP-predictors.

Conclusions

ROEs are determined by patient oral health status, particularly by aspects of oral health compliance and risk for oral disease, but also by GDP characteristics. The latter may reflect perceptions of a professional role, which need to be considered in efforts to improve the quality of ROE in oral care.

Keywords: Routine oral examination, GDPs performance assessment, Clinical practice variation, Quality of oral care

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0300-5712(08)00065-1

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2008.02.017

Journal of Dentistry
Volume 36, Issue 6 , Pages 435-443, June 2008