The impact of Brexit on oral health

Coughlan, James; Shah, Sam

doi:10.1038/s41415-020-2278-z

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2009: 6% da população (Inglaterra, País de Gales e Irlanda do Norte) com perda dentária total, e a proporção de adultos com mais de 21 dentes era de 86%. Profissionais vindos da União Europeia e do Espaço Econômico Europeu realizam cerca de 22% das atividades do NHS (Coughlan & Shah, 2020). A participação de profissionais estrangeiros no NHS na medicina e enfermagem também ocorre, e está melhor compreendida do que na odontologia (Davda et al, 2020).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…Dados do Conselho Geral de Odontologia/General Dental Council (GDC) apontam que 32% desse grupo tem intenção de deixar o RU, principalmente devido à desvalorização da libra em relação ao euro e insatisfações com as condições de trabalho no NHS. Há uma preocupação do órgão de que o Brexit piore a situação de provimento de dentistas no país (Coughlan & Shah, 2020;Davda et al, 2020) O escopo de práticas das categorias profissionais da odontologia do RU é estabelecido pelo GDC. As enfermeiras dentais/dental nurses fornecem suporte ao dentista ou outro profissional da área, sendo sua função mais próxima ao auxiliar de saúde bucal (ASB) brasileiro, e podem ter suas ações ampliadas sob supervisão do dentista.…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Saúde Bucal em sistemas universais de saúde: análise comparativa do Brasil e Reino Unido

Lima

Lyra

Guimarães

et al. 2021

RSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este estudo analisou as principais características de dois sistemas universais, o National Health Service (NHS), no Reino Unido, e o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), no Brasil, em relação às ações e serviços de atenção à saúde bucal. Foi realizada revisão da literatura, análise documental e de dados secundários a partir de bases oficiais do Brasil e do Reino Unido. Observaram-se diferenças no financiamento, população coberta, infraestrutura, organização, prestação e gestão das ações e serviços. Os indicadores sociodemográficos e de condições de saúde bucal são mais desfavoráveis na situação brasileira, contudo, as desigualdades persistem também no Reino Unido. Nos dois países, a saúde é vista como direito constitucional, entretanto as ações de saúde bucal do NHS são restritas a um público específico e ofertada por profissionais do setor privado, com grande parte do custeio de procedimentos pelas famílias. As sucessivas reformas do NHS contribuíram para restrição do acesso. Já o SUS apresenta serviços de saúde bucal, de atenção primária e especializada, de oferta universal e pública, ainda que a cobertura seja insuficiente e com problemas na implantação. Medidas de austeridade foram identificadas como ameaça aos princípios da universalidade e integralidade nos dois países. A análise comparativa auxilia na identificação de elementos que contribuem para o avanço da oferta pública da atenção odontológica.

show abstract

Section: Resultsunclassified

Saúde Bucal em sistemas universais de saúde: análise comparativa do Brasil e Reino Unido

Lima

Lyra

Guimarães

et al. 2021

RSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The precise split between NHS, mixed and private dental provision in the UK is not currently known, although 24 684 dentists reported to provide at least some NHS care in 2019–2020 out of 42 470 registrants, highlighting that the sample is representative in this regard (GDC, 2019; NHS, 2020d). The sample does under‐represent non‐UK graduate dentists (<10% total), with European Economic Area trained dentists currently representing 16% of the UK dental workforce, and providing up to 22% of NHS care (Coughlan & Shah, 2020). DTs make up 8.6% of the dental workforce, making the sample broadly representative in this respect (GDC, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Just over half (51.3%) of NHS dentistry is provided by females in the UK (NHS, 2020d). The precise split between NHS, mixed and private dental provision in the UK is not currently known, although 24 684 dentists reported (Coughlan & Shah, 2020). DTs make up 8.6% of the dental workforce, making the sample broadly representative in this respect (GDC, 2021).…”

Section: Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The management of deep caries in UK primary care: A nationwide questionnaire‐based study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To investigate current approaches and attitudes towards the management of deep caries in primary dental care within the United Kingdom (UK). Methodology Open distribution of an electronic questionnaire survey was undertaken to primary care dental professionals working in publicly funded National Health Service [NHS], privately funded, military and community dental services. Demographic variables investigated included the following: place of qualification, method of remuneration, level of restorative training, materials available, years qualified, appointment length and clinician type. Management variables focussed on case‐based scenarios. Univariate analyses of responses to questions were undertaken using χ2 tests with sequential Bonferroni correction. Variables with a statistical relationship of p ≤ .2 were selected for binary logistic regression modelling. Results A total of 657 responses were received. Practitioners with formal postgraduate qualifications (PGQ) were more likely (OR, 95%CI) to undertake further tests to aid diagnosis including: gaining a patient history (1.80, 1.01–3.20), periapical radiography (1.43, 1.01–2.03), cold pulp testing (2.079, 1.46–2.97) and electric pulp testing (1.65, 1.02–2.65). Rubber dam was infrequently used for deep caries management (29.2%). Non‐NHS practitioners were much more likely to use rubber dam (3.40, 2.15–5.37), as were those that had completed PGQ (2.24, 1.48–3.38). Non‐selective caries removal was used in deep caries by 41.4% of practitioners. Indirect pulp caps were carried out by 56.7% of practitioners. NHS practitioners were more likely to place calcium hydroxide (3.74, 1.97–7.15), whilst non‐NHS practitioners were more likely to place calcium silicate cements (CSCs) (3.303, 1.71–6.38) as were non‐UK graduates (5.63, 2.47–12.86) and those with PGQ (2.12, 1.17–3.87). Conclusions This UK survey highlights significant variation in the management of deep caries. There is lack of consensus regarding the use of a standard systematic approach to diagnosing disease, with a reliance on history and tests with poor specificity. Non‐selective caries removal for managing deep carious lesions remains common, with low rubber dam compliance underlining a lack of asepsis. Notably, a significant number of practitioners placed indirect pulp caps, but CSCs and GIC were not commonly used. At present, although clear guidelines are available this is not translating into consistent management approaches in practice, suggesting that better dissemination of current treatments is essential to undergraduate and postgraduate groups.

show abstract

The Impact of Industry 4.0 on the Medical Device Regulatory Product Life Cycle Compliance

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fourth industrial revolution, also referred to as Industry 4.0, has resulted in many changes within the MedTech Industry. The MedTech industry is changing from interconnected manufacturing systems using cyber-physical systems to digital health technologies. The purpose of the study is to establish how Industry 4.0 can understand the impact Industry 4.0 is having on product lifecycle regulatory compliance and determine the effect Industry 4.0 is having on product lifecycle regulatory compliance. A qualitative research approach was utilised to gather data from the MedTech industry by conducting interviews with Medtech industry leaders. This research demonstrates that Industry 4.0 is easing product lifecycle regulatory compliance and that the impact is more positive than negative. Industry 4.0 offers many benefits to the MedTech Industry. This research will support organisations in demonstrating how digital technologies can positively impact product lifecycle regulatory compliance and support the industry in building a business case for future implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies.

show abstract

The impact of Brexit on oral health

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

Saúde Bucal em sistemas universais de saúde: análise comparativa do Brasil e Reino Unido

Saúde Bucal em sistemas universais de saúde: análise comparativa do Brasil e Reino Unido

The management of deep caries in UK primary care: A nationwide questionnaire‐based study

The Impact of Industry 4.0 on the Medical Device Regulatory Product Life Cycle Compliance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About