Yansane A, Tokede O, White J, Etolue J, McClellan L, Walji M, Obadan-Udoh E, Kalenderian E
1 Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
2 Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
JDR Clin Trans Res. 2019 Apr;4(2):143-150. doi: 10.1177/2380084418815150. Epub 2018 Dec 8.
To fill the void created by insufficient dental terminologies, a multi-institutional workgroup was formed among members of the Consortium for Oral Health Research and Informatics to develop the Dental Diagnostic System (DDS) in 2009. The adoption of dental diagnosis terminologies by providers must be accompanied by rigorous usability and validity assessments to ensure their effectiveness in practice.
The primary objective of this study was to describe the utilization and correct use of the DDS over a 4-y period.
Electronic health record data were amassed from 2013 to 2016 where diagnostic terms and Current Dental Terminology procedure code pairs were adjudicated by calibrated dentists. With the resultant data, we report on the 4-y utilization and validity of the DDS at 5 dental institutions. Utilization refers to the proportion of instances that diagnoses are documented in a structured format, and validity is defined as the frequency of valid pairs divided by the number of all treatment codes entered.
Nearly 10 million procedures ( n = 9,946,975) were documented at the 5 participating institutions between 2013 and 2016. There was a 1.5-fold increase in the number of unique diagnoses documented during the 4-y period. The utilization and validity proportions of the DDS had statistically significant increases from 2013 to 2016 ( P < 0.0001). Academic dental sites were more likely to document diagnoses associated with orthodontic and restorative procedures, while the private dental site was equally likely to document diagnoses associated with all procedures. Overall, the private dental site had significantly higher utilization and validity proportions than the academic dental sites.
The results demonstrate an improvement in utilization and validity of the DDS terminology over time. These findings also yield insight into the factors that influence the usability, adoption, and validity of dental terminologies, raising the need for more focused training of dental students.
Ensuring that providers use standardized methods for documentation of diagnoses represents a challenge within dentistry. The results of this study can be used by clinicians when evaluating the utility of diagnostic terminologies embedded within the electronic health record.
为填补牙科术语不足所造成的空白,口腔健康研究与信息学联盟的成员于2009年组建了一个多机构工作组,以开发牙科诊断系统(DDS)。医疗服务提供者采用牙科诊断术语时,必须同时进行严格的可用性和有效性评估,以确保其在实际应用中的有效性。
本研究的主要目的是描述4年间DDS的使用情况及正确使用情况。
收集2013年至2016年的电子健康记录数据,由经过校准的牙医对诊断术语和当前牙科术语程序代码对进行判定。利用所得数据,我们报告了5家牙科机构4年间DDS的使用情况和有效性。使用率是指以结构化格式记录诊断的实例比例,有效性定义为有效代码对的频率除以输入的所有治疗代码数量。
2013年至2016年期间,5家参与机构记录了近1000万例程序(n = 9,946,975)。4年间记录的独特诊断数量增加了1.5倍。2013年至2016年,DDS的使用率和有效性比例有统计学显著提高(P < 0.0001)。学术性牙科机构更有可能记录与正畸和修复程序相关的诊断,而私立牙科机构记录与所有程序相关诊断的可能性相同。总体而言,私立牙科机构的使用率和有效性比例显著高于学术性牙科机构。
结果表明,随着时间推移,DDS术语的使用率和有效性有所提高。这些发现还深入了解了影响牙科术语可用性、采用率和有效性的因素,凸显了对牙科学生进行更有针对性培训的必要性。
确保医疗服务提供者使用标准化方法记录诊断是牙科领域面临的一项挑战。临床医生在评估电子健康记录中嵌入的诊断术语的效用时,可以使用本研究的结果。