Observational studyBMC oral health2025
Practice of quality management for dental handpiece processing based on FOCUS-PDCA programme.
Observational study in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study applies the find, organise, clarify, understand, select - plan, do, check and act (FOCUS-PDCA) programme to analyse factors affecting dental handpiece (DHP) processing quality and to optimise the workflow using this quality improvement framework.
methodA prospective observational study was conducted at the Affiliated Ruijin Hospital of Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. The study included 2,893 DHPs processed under a routine scheme between July and December 2021 (control group) and 3,032 DHPs processed under the FOCUS-PDCA programme scheme between January and June 2022 (intervention group). The sample size was calculated using the formula for comparing two proportions, aiming to detect a significant difference in processing quality with a power of 80% and an alpha level of 0.05.
resultsThe FOCUS-PDCA programme significantly improved pass rates for cleaning (chi-square [χ²] = 58.955, degree of freedom [df] = 1, P < 0.01), packaging (χ² = 27.835, df = 1, P < 0.01) and sterilisation (χ² = 89.584, df = 1, P < 0.01) compared with routine processing. Staff mastery of theoretical knowledge and operational skills was superior in the FOCUS-PDCA group (t = 16.871, df = 18, P < 0.01; t = 15.348, df = 18, P < 0.01, respectively). The implementation of the programme significantly reduced the incidence of mechanical failures, including bearing and clamping shaft issues (χ² = 5.730, df = 1, P < 0.05; χ² = 5.849, df = 1, P < 0.05, respectively). The satisfaction score for DHP processing quality was higher in the FOCUS-PDCA group, with a mean of 88.80 ± 5.88, compared with 65.13 ± 7.60 in the control group (t = 13.479, df = 58, P < 0.01).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, applying the FOCUS-PDCA programme to DHP processing procedures effectively improved processing quality and reduced mechanical failures. To our knowledge, this is among the first reports applying FOCUS-PDCA to DHP processing in a hospital setting. Clinical doctors and nurses expressed high satisfaction with the quality of processing following the implementation of the improved protocols.
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.