Characteristics of orthognathic multidisciplinary team clinics in England. Part 1: A questionnaire survey.

IF 1.4 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Sasha Brannen, Sarah Rolland, Anna Cala, Christopher R Vernazza, Ninu Paul
{"title":"Characteristics of orthognathic multidisciplinary team clinics in England. Part 1: A questionnaire survey.","authors":"Sasha Brannen,&nbsp;Sarah Rolland,&nbsp;Anna Cala,&nbsp;Christopher R Vernazza,&nbsp;Ninu Paul","doi":"10.1177/14653125231176570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Orthognathic clinics across England are currently run in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) format. It is, however, likely that there is a large variation in the style of these clinics and care pathways for orthognathic patients across the country. This was a cross-sectional, online questionnaire with a primary aim to obtain information on the way orthognathic care is currently delivered throughout England. The secondary objectives were to determine the compliance to the minimum dataset for record collection. The questionnaire, disseminated to orthodontic consultants, detailed 27 items split into waiting lists for new patients, mechanics of the clinic, support for patients and record collection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36 participants responded (one was excluded) to give a total of 35 questionnaire responses. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Of the participants, 34% followed up their patients as per the commissioning guidelines at 1, 2 and 5 years after treatment. Of the participants, 20% said patients' mental health would be screened before adding them to a waiting list, with 26% of participants stating screening was not undertaken for all patients. Of the participants, 11% had available access to psychological support during the MDT meeting and 20% recorded the minimum dataset at the follow-up intervals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are inconsistencies in the orthognathic MDT design across England. Acceptance criteria, support services available and records collected for patients showed substantial variation, highlighting the limited guidance offered by the commissioning guidelines and the potential need to revise the minimum dataset.</p>","PeriodicalId":16677,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"50 3","pages":"287-295"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14653125231176570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Orthognathic clinics across England are currently run in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) format. It is, however, likely that there is a large variation in the style of these clinics and care pathways for orthognathic patients across the country. This was a cross-sectional, online questionnaire with a primary aim to obtain information on the way orthognathic care is currently delivered throughout England. The secondary objectives were to determine the compliance to the minimum dataset for record collection. The questionnaire, disseminated to orthodontic consultants, detailed 27 items split into waiting lists for new patients, mechanics of the clinic, support for patients and record collection.

Results: A total of 36 participants responded (one was excluded) to give a total of 35 questionnaire responses. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Of the participants, 34% followed up their patients as per the commissioning guidelines at 1, 2 and 5 years after treatment. Of the participants, 20% said patients' mental health would be screened before adding them to a waiting list, with 26% of participants stating screening was not undertaken for all patients. Of the participants, 11% had available access to psychological support during the MDT meeting and 20% recorded the minimum dataset at the follow-up intervals.

Conclusion: There are inconsistencies in the orthognathic MDT design across England. Acceptance criteria, support services available and records collected for patients showed substantial variation, highlighting the limited guidance offered by the commissioning guidelines and the potential need to revise the minimum dataset.

英格兰正颌多学科团队诊所的特点。第一部分:问卷调查。
背景:整个英格兰的正颌诊所目前以多学科团队(MDT)的形式运行。然而,在全国范围内,这些诊所的风格和对正颌患者的护理途径可能存在很大差异。这是一份横断面的在线调查问卷,主要目的是获取英格兰目前提供的正颌护理方式的信息。次要目标是确定对记录收集的最小数据集的遵从性。这份问卷被分发给了正畸顾问,详细列出了27个项目,包括新患者的等待名单、诊所的机制、对患者的支持和记录收集。结果:共有36名参与者回复(排除1名),共提供35份问卷回复。采用描述性统计方法对数据进行分析。在参与者中,34%的人在治疗后1年、2年和5年按照委托指南对患者进行了随访。在参与者中,20%的人表示,在将患者加入等候名单之前,会对其进行心理健康筛查,26%的参与者表示,并非对所有患者都进行筛查。在参与者中,11%的人在MDT会议期间可以获得心理支持,20%的人在随访期间记录了最低数据集。结论:英格兰正颌MDT的设计存在不一致性。接受标准、可用的支持服务和收集的患者记录显示出很大的差异,突出了调试指南提供的有限指导和修改最小数据集的潜在需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Orthodontics
Journal of Orthodontics DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
15.40%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthodontics has an international circulation, publishing papers from throughout the world. The official journal of the British Orthodontic Society, it aims to publish high quality, evidence-based, clinically orientated or clinically relevant original research papers that will underpin evidence based orthodontic care. It particularly welcomes reports on prospective research into different treatment methods and techniques but also systematic reviews, meta-analyses and studies which will stimulate interest in new developments. Regular features include original papers on clinically relevant topics, clinical case reports, reviews of the orthodontic literature, editorials, book reviews, correspondence and other features of interest to the orthodontic community. The Journal is published in full colour throughout.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信