Identifying people requiring special care dentistry: A scoping review

AIMS

This scoping review aimed to document tools designed to identify persons requiring special care dentistry (SCD) and to provide a better understanding of the factors that justify adaptation in the provision of care.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology was applied. An electronic search was performed in April 2021 using Pubmed and Embase. Additional tools were sought using hand searches and informal professional networking.

RESULTS

Ten tools were identified that either predict the complexity of dental management or that retrospectively judge the complexity of care, of which two are as yet unpublished. Some had been developed for a specific population (e.g., patients with Alzheimer's disease, with learning disability, elderly persons) whilst others were applicable for any population (case mix tools). Factors considered included the patient's medical history, ability to cooperate, physical and cognitive autonomy, communication skills, anxiety, need for sedation, oral risk factors, ability to consent and the administrative burden for the dentist.

CONCLUSION

Identifying persons requiring SCD is possible by looking at various factors that influence the provision of dental care. There may be need for adaptation of tools to local circumstances and to the intended usage of the tool at a health services, systems or policy level.

History of the British Cardiovascular Society

In 2022, the British Cardiovascular Society celebrates the centenary of its foundation. Starting out as a small group of government-appointed physicians interested in heart disease, the Cardiac Club has grown and adapted to represent all those working in cardiovascular care and research. The historical stages of the organisation's development are outlined, alongside major innovations in science and technology providing context for a rapidly changing medical world. Only a small part of the history of cardiology in Britain is told, with greater emphasis on describing the broader need for services, skilled workforce, healthcare policy and continuing education. Above all, the history of the British Cardiovascular Society is a story of people and places. The people are those with vision, attitude and leadership to improve the care of communities across the world. The places are those that enabled conversation, innovation and freedom to bring about change. It is hard to believe the remarkable progress in diagnosis, prevention and treatment of heart disease over 100 years, but a thriving modern Society must be the greatest legacy of its founders.

Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making

INTRODUCTION

High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable evidence on the comparative efficacy of new medicines. However, non-randomised studies (NRS) are increasingly recognised as a source of insights into the real-world performance of novel therapeutic products, particularly when traditional RCTs are impractical or lack generalisability. This means there is a growing need for synthesising evidence from RCTs and NRS in healthcare decision making, particularly given recent developments such as innovative study designs, digital technologies and linked databases across countries. Crucially, however, no formal framework exists to guide the integration of these data types.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

To address this gap, we used a mixed methods approach (review of existing guidance, methodological papers, Delphi survey) to develop guidance for researchers and healthcare decision-makers on when and how to best combine evidence from NRS and RCTs to improve transparency and build confidence in the resulting summary effect estimates.

RESULTS

Our framework comprises seven steps on guiding the integration and interpretation of evidence from NRS and RCTs and we offer recommendations on the most appropriate statistical approaches based on three main analytical scenarios in healthcare decision making (specifically, 'high-bar evidence' when RCTs are the preferred source of evidence, 'medium,' and 'low' when NRS is the main source of inference).

CONCLUSION

Our framework augments existing guidance on assessing the quality of NRS and their compatibility with RCTs for evidence synthesis, while also highlighting potential challenges in implementing it. This manuscript received endorsement from the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines development principles and processes

Clinical guidelines are developed by professional societies and also, in England, by an independent non-departmental public body, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Similarities and differences between these guidelines should be viewed in the context of different objectives, responsibilities and roles of guideline developers. This review describes the NICE clinical guidelines development principles and processes with the aim to provide the reader an informed perspective on the recommendations made. NICE clinical guidelines are developed by an appointed independent advisory committee comprising healthcare professionals as well as lay members, supported by a professional team comprising project managers, information specialists, systematic reviewers and health economists. Furthermore, registered stakeholders comprising organisations that have an interest in the guideline topic, or represent people whose practice or care may be directly affected by the guideline, are consulted on the draft scope and draft guidelines. NICE selects a limited number of high impact questions to be answered by the review of evidence, rather than cover a certain topic exhaustively as the clinical guidelines developed by professional societies may do. NICE clinical guidelines recommendations reflect both the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Reintroduction of elective cardiac interventions in the era of COVID-19: the Barts experience

Background

The response to COVID-19 has required cancellation of all but the most urgent procedures; there is therefore a need for the reintroduction of a safe elective pathway.

Methods

This was a study of a pilot pathway performed at Barts Heart Centre for the admission of patients requiring elective coronary and structural procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic (April–June 2020). All patients on coronary and structural waiting lists were screened for procedural indications, urgency and adverse features for COVID-19 prognosis and discussed at dedicated multidisciplinary teams. Dedicated admission pathways involving preadmission isolation, additional consent, COVID-19 PCR testing and dedicated clean areas were used.

Results

143 patients (101 coronary and 42 structural) underwent procedures (coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, transcatheter aortic valve intervention and MitralClip) during the study period. The average age was 68.2; 74% were male; and over 93% had one or more moderate COVID-19 risk factors. All patients were COVID-19 PCR negative on admission with (8.1%) COVID-19 antibody positive (swab negative). All procedures were performed successfully with low rates of procedural complications (9.8%). At 2-week follow-up, no patients had symptoms or confirmed COVID-19 infection with significant improvements in quality if life and symptoms.

Conclusion

We demonstrated that patients undergoing coronary and structural procedures can be safely admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with no patients contracting COVID-19 during their admission. Reassuringly, patients reflective of typical practice, that is, those at moderate or higher risk, were treated successfully. This pilot provides important information applicable to other settings, specialties and areas to reintroduce services safely.

Sexism experienced by consultant cardiologists in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES

The aims were to compare the frequency with which male and female cardiologists experience sexism and to explore the types of sexism experienced in cardiology.

METHODS

A validated questionnaire measuring experiences of sexism and sexual harassment was distributed online to 890 UK consultant cardiologists between March and May 2018. χ² tests and pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni correction for multiple analyses compared the experiences of male and female cardiologists.

RESULTS

174 cardiologists completed the survey (24% female; 76% male). The survey showed that 61.9% of female cardiologists have experienced discrimination of any kind, mostly related to gender and parenting, compared with 19.7% of male cardiologists. 35.7% of female cardiologists experienced unwanted sexual comments, attention or advances from a superior or colleague, compared with 6.1% of male cardiologists. Sexual harassment affected the professional confidence of female cardiologists more than it affected the confidence of male cardiologists (42.9% vs 3.0%), including confidence with colleagues (38% vs 10.6%) and patients (23.9% vs 4.6%). 33.3% of female cardiologists felt that sexism hampered opportunities for professional advancement, compared with 2.3% of male cardiologists.

CONCLUSION

Female cardiologists in the UK experience more sexism and sexual harassment than male cardiologists. Sexism impacts the career progression and professional confidence of female cardiologists more, including their confidence when working with patients and colleagues. Future research is urgently needed to test interventions against sexism in cardiology and to protect the welfare of female cardiologists at work.

Tell me if there is a problem: safety in early general practice training

In contrast to other comparable countries, trainees commencing general practice in Australia can see patients without being required to contact their supervisor. To understand how patient safety in early training is managed a qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews was used. A lead medical educator from each of the nine Australian Regional Training Organisations (RTOs) was interviewed. Transcriptions of interviews were analysed to identify themes. RTOs do not mandate a period of direct observation of trainees and the use of safety checklists for supervision is variable and not monitored. The oversight of training practices by RTOs mirrors that of trainees by supervisors. The onus falls on those being supervised to identify the need for assistance. Despite this, lead medical educators still consider the commencement of general practice training to be safe. Other factors found potentially to impact on safety include the variability of training practices and supervision; the complex RTO-practice relationship; quota-driven selection of doctors into general practice; and the negative impact on education of the funding model. Patient safety may be improved by a period of direct observation of potential trainees prior to the commencement of general practice training and the use of checklists to encourage supervision of high risk activities.