Brown L F
School of Dental Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. Australia.
Community Dent Health. 1995 Mar;12(1):23-9.
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.
牙周服务提供情况中记录的巨大差异引发了对可能存在服务不足和过度服务的担忧。本研究的目的是比较用于衡量牙周服务提供情况的各种方法。所比较的方法包括用于衡量服务组合的程序日志、患者记录审核以及患者对其上次一系列牙科就诊时接受治疗的回忆。该研究在南澳大利亚阿德莱德的私人普通牙科诊所中进行。研究的第一个方面将2290名患者对在其上次牙科就诊时接受牙周信息（包括口腔卫生指导）或牙周治疗的回忆与他们牙科记录中的记录进行了比较。不一致率很高，患者教育方面71.5%的病例存在分歧，牙周治疗方面42.2%的病例存在分歧。根据三种数据收集方法对24家牙科诊所提供的牙周相关服务排名进行比较，结果显示诊所的排名与所使用的数据收集方法显著相关（弗里德曼双向方差分析；P<0.05）。得出的结论是，用于衡量牙周护理提供情况的方法是有缺陷的，可能需要不止一种方法来记录预防和治疗服务的全部范围。
