The Scottish Orthodontic Peer Review Project: The Outcome of Treatment and Standard of Record Keeping by Orthodontic Specialist Practitioners in Scotland
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2018
The Scottish Orthodontic Peer Review Project: The Outcome of Treatment and Standard of Record Keeping by Orthodontic Specialist Practitioners in Scotland
Assess occlusal outcomes of treatment and clinical record keeping in specialist practice in Scotland.
Design
A retrospective cohort study.
Setting
Specialist practices in Scotland.
Participants
Specialist orthodontists in Scotland.
Methods
Every specialist practitioner in Scotland (51) was invited to take part in the peer review project with 38 (76%) enrolled. Scotland was split into four geographical areas, and each practitioner matched with a colleague from the same area. Practitioners took one day to visit their colleague and score 30 consecutively treated NHS cases using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. They also assessed the quality of the records taken. Practitioners then swapped roles and assessed their partner's occlusal outcomes and records.
Results
The mean pretreatment PAR score was 28.6 (SD 3.5). Mean posttreatment PAR score was 3.5 (SD 1.2). Mean reduction in PAR score was 25.1 (SD 3.8). Mean percentage PAR score reduction was 87.7% (SD 3.7%). Overall record keeping scores were written records 100%, study models 99.5%, Orthopantomogram radiograph 99.2%, photographs 86.3%, medical history 75% and consent 40.8%.
Conclusions
Occlusal outcomes achieved by specialist practitioners in Scotland were of a high standard. They maintained a good standard of clinical record collection in most areas examined.
BrookePH, ShawWC. 1989. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod. 11:309–320.
5.
BuchananIB, ShawWC, RichmondS, O'BrienKD, AndrewsM.1993. A comparison of the reliability and validity of the PAR Index and Summers’ Occlusal Index. Eur J Orthod. 15:27–31.
6.
BullockAD, ButterfieldS, BelfieldCR, MorrisZS, RibbinsPM, FrameJW. 2000. Professional development: a role for clinical audit and peer review in the identification of continuing professional development needs for general dental practitioners: a discussion. Br Dent J. 189:445–448.
7.
ColeA, McMichaelA.2009. Audit of dental practice record-keeping: a PCT-coordinated clinical audit by Worcestershire dentists. Prim Dent Care. 16:85–93.
8.
D'CruzL, KaneyH.2015. Consent - a new era begins. Br Dent J. 219:57–59.
9.
DoranGT. 1981. There's a SMART way to write management's goals and objectives. Manage Rev. 70:35–36.
10.
DykenRA, SadowskyPL, HurstD.2001. Orthodontic outcomes assessment using the Peer Assessment Rating index. Angle Orthodontist. 71:164–169.
11.
EatonKA, FlemingWG, RichJL. 1998. A report of an evaluation of the pilot peer review scheme for general dental practitioners working in the general dental services in England. Br Dent J. 184:178–182.
12.
FoxNA. 1993. The first 100 cases: a personal audit of orthodontic treatment assessed by the PAR (Peer Assessment Rating) index. Br Dent J. 174:290–297.
13.
FoxNA, RichmondS, WrightJL, DanielsCP. 1997. Factors affecting the outcome of orthodontic treatment within the general dental service. Br J Orthod. 24:217–221.
KellyBM, SpringateSD. 1996. Specialist orthodontics in the general dental service. Br Dent J. 180:209–215.
19.
KerrWJ, BuchananIB, McCollJH. 1993. The use of the PAR in assessing the effectiveness of removable orthodontic appliances. Br J Orthod. 20:351–357.
20.
KolbDA. 2014. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. 2nd ed. In: NeidlingerA. editor. New Jersey (NY): FT Press; p. 18–20.
21.
LingeL, LingeBO. 1991. Patient characteristics and treatment variables associated with root resorption during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 99:35–43.
22.
LlewellynSK, HamdanAM, RockWR. 2007. An index of orthodontic treatment complexity. Eur J Orthod. 29:186–192.
23.
MayersM, FirestoneAR, RashidR, VigKW. 2005. Comparison of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 128:431–434.
24.
McGorraySP, WheelerTT, KeelingSD, YurkiewiczL, TaylorMG, KingGJ. 1999. Evaluation of orthodontists’ perception of treatment need and the peer assessment rating (PAR) index. Angle Orthod. 69:325–333.
25.
McKeownHF, MurrayAM, SandlerPJ. 2005. How to avoid common errors in clinical photography. J Orthod. 32:43–54.
26.
MorganRG. 2001. Quality assurance: quality evaluation of clinical records of a group of general dental practitioners entering a quality assurance programme. Br Dent J. 191:436–441.
O'BrienKD, ShawWC, RobertsCT. 1993. The use of occlusal indices in assessing the provision of orthodontic treatment by the hospital orthodontic service of England and Wales. Br J Orthod. 20:25–35.
RichmondS, AndrewsM, RobertsCT. 1993. The provision of orthodontic care in the general dental services of England and Wales: extraction patterns, treatment duration, appliance types and standards. Br J Orthod. 20:345–350.
31.
RichmondS, ShawWC, O'BrienKD, BuchananIB, JonesR, StephensCD, RobertsCT, AndrewsM.1992a. The development of the PAR index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 14:125–139.
32.
RichmondS, ShawWC, RobertsCT, AndrewsM.1992b. The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod. 14:180–187.
33.
RobertsCT, RichmondS.1997. The design and analysis of reliability studies for the use of epidemiological and audit indices in orthodontics. Br J Orthod. 24:139–147.
34.
StevensDR, Flores-MirC, NebbeB, RaboudDW, HeoG, MajorPW. 2006. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 129:794–803.
TehLH, KerrWJ, McCollJH. 2000. Orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in the general dental service in Scotland. Br J Orthod. 27:175–180.
37.
TurbillEA, RichmondS, AndrewsM.1994. A preliminary comparison of the DPB's grading of completed orthodontic cases with the PAR index. Br J Orthod. 21:279–285.
38.
TurbillEA, RichmondS, WrightJL. 1996a. A critical assessment of orthodontic standards in England and Wales (1990–1991) in relation to changes in prior approval. Br J Orthod. 23:221–228.
39.
TurbillEA, RichmondS, WrightJL. 1996b. Assessment of general dental services orthodontic standards: the dental practice board's gradings compared to PAR and IOTN. Br J Orthod. 23:211–220.
40.
TurbillEA, RichmondS, WrightJL. 1998. A critical assessment of high-earning orthodontists in the general dental services of England and Wales (1990–1991). Br J Orthod. 25:47–54.
41.
TurbillEA, RichmondS, WrightJL. 1999. A closer look at general dental service orthodontics in England and Wales. II: what determines appliance selection?Br Dent J. 187:271–274.
