quality of oral surgery referrals and how to improve them
Clicks: 284
ID: 227512
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
284 views
35 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #4 of 14 articles by views in journal of memory and language
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Mikael Björkeborn,1 Henrik Nilsson,2 Jonas Anderud1 1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Halmstad Hospital, Halmstad, Sweden; 2Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Växjö Hospital, Växjö, Sweden Aim: To assess the quality of routine oral surgery referrals received at Halmstad Hospital and Växjö Hospital and to emphasize areas for improvement. Method: A retrospective study was performed on all routine oral surgery referrals received between 2014 and 2015 at both Halmstad Hospital and Växjö Hospital. A total of 1,891 referral letters were assessed for their quality against a predetermined checklist of basic requirements of a satisfactory referral. The referrals were also categorized according to if it was sent by a male, female, private dental service, or the Swedish Public Dental Health service. Results: A diagnosis was missing in 30% of all referrals. Radiographs and information about previous radiographic examinations were not included in 10% of the referrals. Of those referrals that included radiographs, only around half were deemed adequate for diagnostic purposes. The presenting complaint was missing in 40% of all referrals. Current medical history was absent in 40% and current medication was omitted in 60% of the referrals. Information about tobacco use was only included in 10% of all referrals. Overall, female referrers performed better than male colleagues. Private referrals more regularly included information about diagnosis, previous treatment, and current medication. On the other hand, referrals from the public dental health service more frequently included radiographs, tobacco use, and current medical history. Conclusion: There is plenty of room for improving the standards of oral surgery referrals. We suggest that future electronic referral systems should only allow for submission once all of the essential information has been considered. Keywords: clinical audit, referral quality, oral surgery referrals
| Reference Key |
m2017clinical,quality
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Bjorkeborn M;Nilsson H;Anderud J |
| Journal | journal of memory and language |
| Year | 2017 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.