BackgroundFrom dental care providers’ perspective, it is vital to put efforts into improving the quality of services delivered. Therefore, the exploration of patients’ satisfaction with dental services and their preferences with regard to the factors involved in their dental care choices should be one of the main areas of focus in a dental care office, by focusing on the quality management.AimsThe aim of this research was to determine the factors that patients consider important when choosing a dentist, and bring evidence on the importance of implementing a quality management system for dental care.Methods and participantsThe data analysis was conducted on a national representative sample of patients who had visited a dentist at least once in the last 12 months, in Romania. Using a survey which explored patients’ satisfaction with their dental care visits, data were collected between October and November 2012 with the help of computer-assisted telephone interviews. Information about socio-demographics, frequency of accessing dental care, factors associated with choosing a dentist, and the level of patients’ satisfaction were collected.ResultsOut of the 1,650 people who agreed to participate in the study, 724 respondents (43.8%) represented the sample who visited a dentist at least once in the last 12 months and whose responses were analyzed in this article. The majority of the respondents were satisfied with the quality of dental services received, with 85.91% of them rating their satisfaction with 5, on a scale from 1 to 5. According to a high majority of the patients (n=680, 93.92%), the communication with their dentist was extremely easy. The most frequently mentioned factors that respondents took into account when choosing a dentist were the dentist’s competence (22.22%), the recommendation from someone known (20.56%), and the overall quality of the service provided (19.72%). Among the other factors mentioned were patience and respect.ConclusionThe factors patients consider important when choosing a dentist are the dentist’s competence, the recommendation from someone known, and the overall quality of the service provided, but interpersonal factors such as patience and respect are also valued. Our results are relevant for dental education providers, who should consider shaping their curricula as to ensure they train future dentists in a manner that will meet patients’ expectations and increase patient satisfaction levels.

Objective Road traffic injuries are one of the leading causes of preventable unintentional injury. The European Injury Database estimated that in European Union (EU)-27 countries, road traffic injuries account for 10% of all injuries treated in the emergency department or admitted to the hospital, accounting for 4.2 million victims each year. We examined the characteristics and outcomes of road traffic injuries treated in a large emergency department in Romania by different types of road users. Methods Secondary data analysis was conducted on a sample of patients who suffered a transport-related injury and received care at the Emergency Department of Mures County Emergency Hospital in Romania. Data was collected by 2 trained emergency physicians between March 2009 and July 2010, as part of the European Injury Database project. Information about demographics, mechanism, nature, place of occurrence, and activity of injury; treatment and follow-up; and mode of transport were described for 5 different categories of road users: animal-drawn vehicle (operator and passenger), passenger car (driver and passenger), motorcycle (driver and passenger), bicyclist, and pedestrian. Results A total of 2,782 patients were treated in the emergency department, of which 718 (25.8%) were road traffic injuries. The male-to-female ratio was 2:1. The highest percentage of patients were injured in passenger cars (49%), followed by motorcycles (16.7%). For both types of road users, the majority of patients were between the ages of 18 and 29. Pedestrian injuries accounted for 14.6%, of which a third were children up to the age of 17 and 40% were adults and elderly over the age of 50. The majority of patients were injured due to contact with a moving object (48.1%), followed by contact with static object (23.5%), then falling, stumbling, jumping, or being pushed (19.6%). Contusion and bruises (54.9%) were the most common diagnosis, followed by fractures (20.1%) and open wounds (10.2%) for all road user categories. The most common part of the body injured for all road user categories was the head region (42.3%). Of the 34.9% patients treated and admitted to the hospital, 30% had a length of stay between 4 and 7 days. Conclusions Understanding the extent, nature, and characteristics of road traffic injuries may help to identify vulnerable road users in specific settings and implement the most effective prevention strategies targeting the most affected populations.

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of the study was to describe paediatric head injuries and identify factors that led to advanced care. Incident cases of head injuries that sought care from December 2008 to October 2010 at Children’s Emergency Hospital Cluj-Napoca were evaluated. The main outcome was transfer or admission to advanced care. From a total of 3053 children treated for an injury, 1541 (50.4%) presented with head injury. A total of 960 (62.3%) of the children with a head injury required advanced care treatment. Young children were more likely to suffer a head injury than older children, but a higher proportion of older children required advanced care (70.3%). Children who suffered a head injury as a consequence of road traffic were almost five times more likely to require advanced care (OR: 4.97; 3.09–8.06) than being released. Our results suggest that data on injuries provide evidence-based information on the nature of injuries children are prone to, and what activity, type, and mechanism of injury impact Romanian children.