Page 30

although that interpretation equates quality of care with technical excellence while ignoring the more important consideration of patient outcomes. Also, no norms for comparison of technical performance using these evaluation measures are available. The following evaluations were conducted: Sealant Placement: Evaluation of sealants required observation of four process steps: isolation, drying, surface preparation, and polymerization. The completed sealant was then evaluated clinically for retention and occlusion. Criteria, which are described on the recording form (Appendix F), were adapted from those employed in the Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry. Due to differences in clinical activities during site visits, sealant placement procedures were available for evaluation at only three sites. Sealant materials were not assessed. Composite and Amalgam Preparation and Restoration Evaluation: Composite and amalgam preparations and subsequent restorations were evaluated in each site’s dental clinic during the course of the clinic. These procedures were performed by therapists, and this was known by the evaluator. In addition, composite and amalgam restorations were evaluated during the oral health surveys. All evaluations of restorations during the oral health survey were blind (i.e., evaluated without the evaluator having knowledge of whether a therapist or other provider did the restoration). For one composite restoration at one site, the identity of the provider could not be determined. For purposes of this report, the evaluations of the restorations performed in the clinics and those presented during the oral health surveys have been combined. The evaluation criteria for preparations and restorations are listed on the data recording forms (Appendix G for composite, Appendix H for amalgam), and were adapted from those established by the Council of Interstate Testing Agencies (CITA) for their licensing examination (Council on Interstate Testing Agencies, 2010). Evaluators were trained through co-examination and discussion with experienced instructors from the Department of Operative Dentistry, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry. Inter-examiner reliability for acceptability of individual criteria across eight restorations was 93%. Intra-examiner reliability was not assessed. Stainless Steel Crown Preparation and Restoration Evaluation: Similar to composite and amalgam procedures, preparations were to be observed in the course of clinical activities at the site, and restorations were evaluated both in the clinic and during the oral health examinations, where the evaluator was blind to the type of provider. Criteria were adapted from those employed by the Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, and are listed on the data collection forms (Appendix I). Training consisted of discussion and co-examination of previously placed crowns. 3-4

/Alaska_DHAT_Program_Evaluation_Final_10_25_10  

http://vtoralhealth4all.org/downloads/Alaska_DHAT_Program_Evaluation_Final_10_25_10.pdf

/Alaska_DHAT_Program_Evaluation_Final_10_25_10  

http://vtoralhealth4all.org/downloads/Alaska_DHAT_Program_Evaluation_Final_10_25_10.pdf

Advertisement