Objectives: Medical errors are among the leading causes of death within the United States. Studies have shown that patients can be harmed while receiving care, sometimes resulting in permanent injury or, in extreme cases, death. To reduce the risk of patient safety incidents, it is imperative that a robust culture of safety be established. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the patient safety culture among providers at 4 US dental institutions, comparing the results with their medical counterparts in 2016. Methods: This cross-sectional study uses the Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture that was modified for dentistry and administered at 4 US dental institutions during the 2016 calendar year. All dental team members were invited to complete electronic or paper-based versions of the questionnaire. Results: Among 1,615 invited participants, 656 providers responded (rate, 40.6%). Medical institutions outperformed the dental institutions on 9 of the 10 safety culture dimensions, 6 of the 6 overall quality items, and 8 of the 9 patient safety and quality issues. The surveyed dental institutions reported the strongest average percentage positive scores in organizational learning (85%) and teamwork (79%). Conclusion: These findings suggest that the patient safety culture progressed over time. However, there is still heterogeneity within safety culture among academic dental, private (nonacademic), and medical clinics. Knowledge Transfer Statement: Patient safety is the first dimension of quality improvement. Administering the Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture within dental clinics represents a key measure to understand where improvements can be made with respect to patient care safety.

Objectives Using data from dentists participating in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN), the study had 2 main objectives: (1) to identify and quantify the types of restorative materials in the existing failed restorations; and (2) to identify and quantify the materials used to repair or replace those failed restorations. Methods This cross-sectional study used a consecutive patient/restoration recruitment design. Practitioner-investigators recorded data on consecutive restorations in permanent teeth that needed repair or replacement. Data included the primary reason for repair or replacement, tooth surface(s) involved, restorative materials used, and patient demographics. Results Data for 9,875 restorations were collected from 7,502 patients in 197 practices for which 75% of restorations were replaced and 25% repaired. Most of the restorations that were either repaired or replaced were amalgam (56%) for which most (56%) of the material used was direct tooth-colored. The restorative material was 5 times more likely to be changed when the original restoration was amalgam (OR=5.2, p<.001). The likelihood of changing an amalgam restoration differed as a function of the tooth type (OR=3.0, p<.001), arch (OR=6.6, p<.001); and number of surfaces in the original restoration (OR=12.2, p<.001). Conclusion The probability of changing from amalgam to another restorative material differed with several characteristics of the original restoration. The change was most likely to take place when (1) the treatment was a replacement; (2) the tooth was not a molar; (3) the tooth was in the maxillary arch; and (4) the original restoration involved a single surface.

Introduction A preliminary study done by a National Dental Practice-Based Research Network precursor observed that 44% of general dentists (GDs) reported always using a rubber dam (RD) during root canal treatment (RCT). This full-scale study quantified use of all isolation techniques, including RD use. Methods Network practitioners completed a questionnaire about isolation techniques used during RCT. Network Enrollment Questionnaire data provided practitioner characteristics. Results 1,490 of 1,716 eligible GDs participated (87%); 697 (47%) reported always using a RD. This percentage varied by tooth type. These GDs were more likely to always use a RD: do not own a private practice; perform less than 10 RCT/month; have postgraduate training. Conclusions Most GDs do not use a RD all the time. Ironically, RDs are used more frequently by GDs who do not perform molar RCT. RD use varies with tooth type and certain dentist, practice, and patient characteristics.

Objectives The purpose of this study was to quantify within The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network current utilization of dental hygienists and assistants with expanded functions and quantify network dentists’ attitudes toward a new non-dentist provider model - the dental therapist. Methods Dental practice-based research network practitioner-investigators participated in a single, cross-sectional administration of a questionnaire. Results Current non-dentist providers are not being utilized by network practitioner-investigators to the fullest extent allowed by law. Minnesota practitioners, practitioners in large group practices, and those with prior experience with expanded function non-dentist providers delegate at a higher rate and had more-positive perceptions of the new dental therapist model. Conclusions Expanding scopes of practice for dental hygienists and assistants has not translated to the maximal delegation allowed by law among network practices. This finding may provide insight into dentists’ acceptance of newer non-dentist provider models.

Background: Preventable medical errors in hospital settings are the third leading cause of deaths in the United States. However, less is known about harm that occurs in patients in outpatient settings, where the majority of care is delivered. We do not know the likelihood that a patient sitting in a dentist chair will experience harm. Additionally, we do not know if patients of certain race, age, sex, or socioeconomic status disproportionately experience iatrogenic harm. Methods:We initiated the Dental Practice Study (DPS) with the aim of determining the frequency and types of adverse events (AEs) that occur in dentistry on the basis of retrospective chart audit. This article discusses the 6-month pilot phase of the DPS during which we explored the feasibility and efficiency of our multistaged review process to detect AEs.Results: At sites 1, 2, and 3, respectively, 2 reviewers abstracted 21, 11, and 23 probable AEs, respectively, from the 100 patient charts audited per site. At site 2, a third reviewer audited the same 100 charts and found only 1 additional probable AE. Of the total 56 probable AEs (from 300 charts), the expert panel confirmed 9 AE cases. This equals 3 AEs per 100 patients per year. Patients who experienced an AE tended to be male and older and to have undergone more procedures within the study year.Conclusions: This article presents an overview of the DPS. It describes the methods used and summarizes the results of its pilot phase. To minimize threats to dental patient safety, a starting point is to understand their basic epidemiology, both in terms of their frequency and the extent to which they affect different populations.