No abstract

On 23rd March, the UK Government announced a nationwide lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the unequivocal and absolute cessation of all elective dental treatment. With much conflicting evidence on best practice to deliver safe treatment comprising of emergency dento-alveolar surgery, this paper describes the protocols which were undertaken to successfully set up a novel Urgent Dental Care Centre (UDCC) service within a short timeframe. We present patient data from referral through to treatment for the entire ten-week period of operation. A UDCC was established at Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup within 10 days of this announcement. Through an iterative process with minor stakeholders and in collaboration with our Local Dental Committee, a comprehensive urgent dental service was established. Our UDCC received 1,311 referrals within a 10-week period, with 884 patients being accepted for treatment. The majority of treatment delivered in this emergency setting was surgical dento-alveolar procedures (84%). Sixteen per cent of patients attended for trauma, first stage restorative treatment for teeth and postoperative complications. Both aerosol and non-aerosol generating procedures were available to patients. Preventing acute hospital admissions relies on the ability to provide safe dento-alveolar surgery. Our results advocate that our unique UDCC is efficient and provides appropriate patient access and outcomes for those most in need of urgent dental treatment in the face of a pandemic.

Introduction An urgent dental care centre (UDCC) was set up at Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Alongside the reporting of clinical outcomes, it is important to determine the success of a service from a patients’ perspective. The aim of this study was to ascertain patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient reported experienced measures (PREMs) of our service. Method The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) tool was used to assess the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) of patients, and completed before and after attending our UDCC for treatment. Patients were also asked to complete a patient satisfaction questionnaire. Results 146 patients were recruited for our study, with 95 patients completing the OHIP-14 questionnaires pre- and post intervention at our UDCC and 136 patients completing a patient satisfaction questionnaire. A statistically significant reduction in OHIP score when comparing pre- and post intervention was found across all 14 OHIP domains. The mean positive response rate (strongly agree or agree) for the patient satisfaction questionnaire was 97.1%. Conclusion A significant improvement in OHRQoL was found after treatment at our UDCC, with the majority of patients reporting a positive experience. We conclude that PROMs and PREMs are vital tools to assess service efficacy, help with the planning of service provision and should remain at the forefront even during a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.