A comparison of methods of ranking the provision of periodontal services by dental practices in south Australia.

Wide variations documented in the provision of periodontal services have raised concerns about possible under- and over-servicing. The aim of this study was to compare various methods used to measure the provision of periodontal services. The methods compared were procedure logs to measure service mix, audits of patients' records and patients' recall of treatment received at their last series of dental visits. The study was conducted among private general dental practices in Adelaide, South Australia. The first aspect of the study compared 2,290 patients' recall of receiving periodontal information, including oral hygiene instruction, or periodontal treatment at their last dental visit(s) with notations of their dental records. Discordance was high, with disagreement occurring in 71.5 per cent of cases for patient education, and 42.2 per cent of cases for periodontal treatment. Comparison of the ranking of the provision of periodontally-related services by 24 dental practices according to the three data collection methods showed that the ranking of a practice was significantly related to the data collection method used (Friedman's two-way ANOVA; P < 0.05). It was concluded that methods used to measure the provision of periodontal care are fallible, and that more than one method may be needed to record the full range of preventive and treatment services.