ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2021
Preventing Wrong Tooth Extraction.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of patient safety checklists in dentistry.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Patient safety in orthodontic care: a scoping literature review with proposal for terminology and future research agenda.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Surgical safety checklists for dental implant surgeries-a scoping review.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective of workWrong-site tooth extraction (WSTE) is the most common serious patient safety incident in dentistry. Safety checklists have significantly reduced wrong-site surgery, although their benefit is unproven in primary care dentistry. Our quality improvement project developed and implemented a checklist optimised for oral surgery procedures in primary care to reduce WSTE risk. MATERIAL AND
methodsLocal best practice for tooth extraction record-keeping (LBP), using national guidelines and standards was devised. We then retrospectively audited tooth extraction record-keeping against LBP. Deficiencies in current record-keeping practice were identified and used to design a checklist aimed at improving compliance. We provided a computerised safety checklist compliant with LBP to eleven clinicians at three general dental clinics within our region. The checklist included a pre-operative safety check, a pause to re-confirm the surgical site and a post-operative record-keeping proforma. The checklist was linked to our record-keeping software for use during tooth extraction. We audited checklist completion and compliance with LBP fortnightly for ten weeks.
resultsThe introduction of a safety checklist resulted in increased compliance with LBP for tooth extraction record keeping. At week ten, 67% of records contained the computerised safety checklist. This resulted in a 50% increase in overall compliance with LBP for tooth extraction compared to baseline.
conclusionsA computerised safety checklist for tooth extraction in primary care has potential to improve patient safety by adopting measures to prevent WSTE and standardising communication between clinicians. Checklists in general practice should be encouraged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.