Peer review amongst restorative specialists on the quality of their communication with referring dental practitioners

The use and understanding of dental notation systems in UK and Irish dental hospitals

Aim To identify the types of dental notation systems used in dental hospitals, and their perceived advantages and disadvantages. In addition, to record the dental notation used in patient referral letters.Method A self-completed questionnaire survey asking about the use of dental notation systems was distributed to 16 dental hospitals in the UK and Ireland in the summer of 2016. In addition, dentist referrals to the Restorative Dentistry department of the University Dental Hospital of Manchester were sequentially assessed for the dental notation used.Results Twelve hospitals replied. In order of frequency, the notation systems in use were the Alphanumeric, the Palmer, and the Federation Dentaire Internationale system. No hospital used the Universal system. Perceived advantages and disadvantages of each of the different systems were volunteered. One hundred and twenty-four referral letters were assessed and 100 were identified where dental notation was used. The majority used Alphanumeric notation.Conclusion A variety of dental notation systems remain in use in dental hospitals. The move to electronic recording and communication of information regarding teeth is encouraging the use of the Alphanumeric system. General dental practitioners are predominantly using the Alphanumeric system as their notation of choice in referral letters to the Restorative Dentistry department in Manchester.

Reply letters following orthodontic consultations: an audit of Merseyside general dental practitioners' satisfaction

OBJECTIVES

To assess the opinions of general dental practitioners (GDPs) working within the National Health Ser vice (NHS) in Merseyside regarding the length, format and appropriateness of consultant orthodontists' letters sent in reply to referral letters.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

These were GDPs' satisfaction with the length, format and content of the reply letters; GDPs' preferences for the information deemed necessary in such letters; GDPs' awareness of the status of their patients and the actions they were requested to undertake.

METHOD

After piloting, questionnaires were mailed to 330 participating GDPs between August and October 2004.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-one (76%) questionnaires were returned. With one exception, the length of consultants' letters was thought to be adequate. Of the responding GDPs 82% stated a preference for summaries of the diagnosis and treatment plan to be presented in a list format rather than as free text. Aspects of the treatment plan were thought to be more important than the information about the examination. Following receipt of the reply letter only 71% of GDPs were aware of what was happening to their patients and 75% knew what actions they were to undertake.

CONCLUSIONS

This audit provides evidence that GDPs consider that a significant portion of the information in consultants' reply letters is not needed. Relevant information may be poorly communicated.

A survey of general dental practitioners' opinions of response letters received from hospital specialists following a referred patient's first appointment

OBJECTIVES

To discover what dentists require of a hospital response letter with regards to content and timeliness.

DESIGN

Postal survey.

SETTING

South Wales.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A postal questionnaire was issued to all dentists (n = 256) who had referred a patient to the dental hospital between 1 January 2003 and 1 March 2003.

RESULTS

The response rate was 60.2% (154). The preferred time frame for the receipt of a letter following a patient's appointment was one to three weeks for 96.4% (n = 133) of respondents, but 58.4% believed that they currently do not receive responses within this time frame. The preferred method of communication remained the letter (n = 82, 53%), followed by the telephone (n = 58, 38%). E-mail accounted for eight percent (n = 12) of communication. Most respondents (70%, n = 107) were satisfied with the letters' content. Eight of the ten items of information suggested as being appropriate in a response letter were considered essential by 53.2% of dentists (n = 82), and 55.8% (n = 76) believed the remaining two items to be desirable.

CONCLUSIONS

Dentists agree closely on the information required in a response letter and most are satisfied with the content of current response letters. However, many dentists believe response letters arrive later than three weeks after their patient's appointment.

A Review of Referrals of New Patients to the Paediatric Department of a Teaching Hospital during a Six-Month Period in 2004

Aims

The aims of this review were to assess the reasons why patients were referred to a specialist dental paediatric unit and the quality of the referral letters received.

Material and Method

All patients referred to the paediatric consultation clinic at the Liverpool University Dental Hospital from January 2004 to July 2004 were included in the review. The reasons for their referral, as stated by the referring practitioners, were compared with the clinical findings from initial assessments in the consultation clinic and the quality of referral letters was assessed.

Results

Ninety-nine out of a total of 102 referrals were from general dental practitioners. Sixty were girls and 42 boys. Their mean age was 9.5 years. The commonest reason (25 patients) was for treatment under general anaesthesia. In 90 (88.2%) cases the main reason for referral stated in the letters was consistent with the findings of the clinical assessment in the consultant clinic. All 102 letters included the patient's name, address, date of birth and telephone number and 89 (87.3%) were dated. However, only 25 (24.5%) included any mention of medical history and fewer than 30% included details of any treatment provided by the referring practitioner.

Conclusions

The vast majority of patients were referred for good reasons. The quality of the referral letters was generally poor. The use of a structured referral pro forma could improve the quality of the referral.