ArticleBMC oral health2025
Developing and evaluating a dental incident reporting system: a user-centered approach to risk management.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient safety is critical in healthcare, and adverse events (AEs) in dental care require tailored reporting systems for accurate documentation and risk management. Generalized systems fail to address the unique needs of dentistry, necessitating a specialized approach. This study introduces the dental incident reporting system (DIRS), a user-centered framework designed to overcome the barriers in dental incident reporting.
methodsThis mixed-methods study was conducted in three phases. Phase 1 involved the development of a comprehensive classification system for dental AEs using 752 patient safety incidents reported over 5 years at the Dental Hospital, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University. Phase 2 involved the design and refinement of the DIRS, integrating features such as automated risk assessment and classification assistance, validated through heuristic evaluations. Phase 3 comprised usability testing with 16 end users using the system usability scale (SUS) and user acceptance test (UAT) to assess perceived effectiveness, usefulness, and satisfaction.
resultsThe classification system categorized dental-specific AEs, aligning with the hospital accreditation standards. The DIRS achieved a mean SUS score of 69.7, indicating above-average usability. The UAT showed high user ratings for effectiveness (mean, 3.15; SD, 0.49), usefulness (mean, 3.15; SD, 0.51), and satisfaction (mean, 3.38; SD, 0.48). Strong reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96) was demonstrated across the evaluations.
conclusionsThe DIRS addresses gaps in dental incident reporting by offering a user-friendly, standardized system. Its potential to enhance reporting accuracy and foster a culture of transparency highlights its significance for improving dental patient safety. Future efforts should focus on refining usability, expanding testing, and exploring scalability for broader adoption.
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.