Making impressions count: An evaluation of the quality of information provided by orthodontic practices in London in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: As a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, primary care specialist orthodontic practices have been limited to providing emergency treatment only. This has resulted in a cessation of normal face-to-face services and patient advice can only be offered by remote means. A service evaluation was carried out to assess the quality of information published on websites and social media pages of specialist orthodontic practices in London, against General Dental Council guidance on communication and advertising and the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) COVID-19 specific guidance for orthodontics in primary care in relation to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study also aimed to provide a gold standard template for orthodontic practices to aid in the delivery of information on a digital platform during the current (COVID-19) pandemic and future possible spikes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All orthodontic practices providing care in the London region were identified from a CQC Database and subsequently checked against predetermined criteria based on the BOS guidance and the GDC Guidance on Ethical Advertising.

RESULTS

Of the 83 orthodontic practices sampled; 78 had a website of which 18 (23.1%) were non-compliant with GDC guidance. Facebook pages were identified for 62 orthodontic practices. 17 practices did not provide any update in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was more frequently carried out on practice websites (78.2%) compared to Facebook pages (33.9%). A number of practices were identified as having novel strategies to manage communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Variation was observed in information published by practices despite the regularly updated, blanket information provided by the BOS. Communication may have been delivered by a different means during the pandemic which this study did not account for. In addition, the sampling method may not have identified all practices within the London region, however the sample size seems appropriate to draw meaningful conclusions. The checklist created should help improve the delivery of future information.