Dataset Information

Patient-reported orofacial-dental pain severity and tele-triage decisions during COVID-19 pandemic: Does the severity of pain drive tele-triage decisions?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Globally, with the COVID-19 pandemic, dental services were limited to emergency/ urgent conditions and were provided only after tele-triage referral for face-to-face management. However, no previous research explored whether the pain severity (PS) drives the tele-triage decisions. The current study examined the association between PS and tele-triage decision of whether to manage the condition remotely or refer the caller for face-to-face management.

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the PS reported by hotline callers, using numerical rating scale (NRS-11), during the first wave of COVID-19 lockdown (23 March-31 August 2020) and its association with tele-triage decision controlling for age, sex, history of chronic illness, and dental discipline needed. Binomial logistic regression assessed the association between the PS (exposure) and tele-triage decision (outcome). ANOVA compared PS across tele-triage categories, dental history and tentative diagnosis.

Results

PS was significantly associated with tele-triage decisions (p < 0.05). An increase in pain score by 1 unit was associated with 1.4 times increased odds of face-face referral (95% CI: 1.26-1.54). Pediatric/ adolescent patients (9-18 years) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.07-4.02), history of chronic illness (OR = 2.12; 95% CI:1.28-3.51), need for surgical specialty (OR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.22-3.04) and orthodontic specialty (OR = 7.02; 95% CI: 3.54-13.87) were independently associated with tele-triage decision. PS was highest for the emergency triage category (8.00 ± 2.83, P < 0.0001), dental history of tooth with cavity or filling (6.65 ± 2.024, P < 0.0001), and the tentative tele-diagnosis of cellulitis (7.75 ± 2.872, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

During COVID-19 pandemic, tele-triage decisions were significantly influenced by patient-reported PS, adjusting for a range of variables. Despite this, referral for face-to-face management was individualized and driven by the tripartite considerations of the reported pain, clinical judgement, and the high transmission characteristics of COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Ali SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9326137 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth services were used by healthcare centers during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to identify and manage patients at the forefront of the healthcare system. As one of these technologies, tele-triage refers to the assessment of a patient's health status through telephone or another means of communication and recommending treatment or providing appropriate referrals in emergency rooms and primary care offices. This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the evidence on the effectiveness of tele-triage, as one of these technologies, during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsMedline (via PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for relevant English articles published since the pandemic's onset until December 30, 2021. Studies investigating the tele-triage's effect on patient safety, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction were included. Data on study characteristics, intervention characteristics, and their effects on study outcomes were extracted separately by two authors. A narrative synthesis of the included studies was ultimately performed.ResultsOut of the 6312 retrieved studies, 14 met the inclusion criteria. The tele-triage intervention was offered by an algorithm-based system in eight studies (57.14%) and by healthcare providers in six other studies (42.86%) to determine the patient's level of care. According to the results, tele-triage interventions during COVID-19 can reduce unnecessary emergency room visits (by 1.2-22.2%), improve clinical outcomes after intervention (such as would closure in diabetic feet), reduce mortality and injuries, and ensure patient satisfaction with tele-triage (53-98%).ConclusionsThis study found that tele-triage interventions reduced unnecessary visits, improved clinical outcomes, reduced mortality, and injuries, increased patient satisfaction, reduced healthcare provider workload, improved access to primary care consultation, and increased patient safety and satisfaction. Therefore, tele-triage systems are not only suitable for providing acute and emergency care remotely but they are also recommended as an alternative tool to monitor and diagnose COVID-19.

Project description:PurposeThe study explored the clinical influence, effectiveness, limitations, and human comparison outcomes of machine learning in diagnosing (1) dental diseases, (2) periodontal diseases, (3) trauma and neuralgias, (4) cysts and tumors, (5) glandular disorders, and (6) bone and temporomandibular joint as possible causes of dental and orofacial pain.MethodScopus, PubMed, and Web of Science (all databases) were searched by 2 reviewers until 29th October 2020. Articles were screened and narratively synthesized according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines based on predefined eligibility criteria. Articles that made direct reference test comparisons to human clinicians were evaluated using the MI-CLAIM checklist. The risk of bias was assessed by JBI-DTA critical appraisal, and certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Information regarding the quantification method of dental pain and disease, the conditional characteristics of both training and test data cohort in the machine learning, diagnostic outcomes, and diagnostic test comparisons with clinicians, where applicable, were extracted.Results34 eligible articles were found for data synthesis, of which 8 articles made direct reference comparisons to human clinicians. 7 papers scored over 13 (out of the evaluated 15 points) in the MI-CLAIM approach with all papers scoring 5+ (out of 7) in JBI-DTA appraisals. GRADE approach revealed serious risks of bias and inconsistencies with most studies containing more positive cases than their true prevalence in order to facilitate machine learning. Patient-perceived symptoms and clinical history were generally found to be less reliable than radiographs or histology for training accurate machine learning models. A low agreement level between clinicians training the models was suggested to have a negative impact on the prediction accuracy. Reference comparisons found nonspecialized clinicians with less than 3 years of experience to be disadvantaged against trained models.ConclusionMachine learning in dental and orofacial healthcare has shown respectable results in diagnosing diseases with symptomatic pain and with improved future iterations and can be used as a diagnostic aid in the clinics. The current review did not internally analyze the machine learning models and their respective algorithms, nor consider the confounding variables and factors responsible for shaping the orofacial disorders responsible for eliciting pain.

Project description:Although children with oral clefts have a higher risk for dental anomalies when compared with the general population, prior studies have shown conflicting results regarding their dental decay risk. Also, few studies have assessed dental decay risk in unaffected relatives of children with clefts. Thus, the question of increased risk of dental decay in individuals with oral clefts or their unaffected relatives is still open for empirical investigation. This study characterizes dental decay in the largest international cohort to date of children with nonsyndromic clefts and their relatives, as compared with controls, and it addresses whether families with oral clefts have a significantly increased risk for dental decay versus the general population. A total of 3,326 subjects were included: 639 case probands, 1,549 unaffected relatives, and 1,138 controls. Decay was identified from in-person dental examinations or intraoral photographs. Case-control differences were tested with regression analysis. No significant differences were shown in percentage decayed and filled teeth and decayed teeth in the primary dentition (dft, dt) and permanent dentition (DFT, DT) in cases versus controls. In the cleft region, no significant differences were seen in primary or permanent decay (dt, DT) when compared with controls. No difference was found with regard to cleft type and percentage dft, dt, DFT, and DT in case probands. Nonsignificant differences were found in unaffected siblings and parents versus controls (primary and permanent dentitions). Collectively, these findings indicate that individuals with nonsyndromic oral clefts and their families do not have a higher dental decay risk as compared with the general population. These results suggest that either genetic or environmental factors underlying a higher susceptibility for dental anomalies do not increase caries risk or that the seemingly higher risk for dental decay associated with increased dental anomalies in case probands may be superseded by possible greater access to dental care.

Project description:Children with oral clefts show a wide range of dental anomalies, adding complexity to understanding the phenotypic spectrum of orofacial clefting. The evidence is mixed, however, on whether the prevalence of dental anomalies is elevated in unaffected relatives and is mostly based on small samples. In the largest international cohort to date of children with nonsyndromic clefts, their relatives, and controls, this study characterizes the spectrum of cleft-related dental anomalies and evaluates whether families with clefting have a significantly higher risk for such anomalies compared with the general population. A total of 3,811 individuals were included: 660 cases with clefts, 1,922 unaffected relatives, and 1,229 controls. Dental anomalies were identified from in-person dental exams or intraoral photographs, and case-control differences were tested using χ(2) statistics. Cases had higher rates of dental anomalies in the maxillary arch than did controls for primary (21% vs. 4%, P = 3 × 10(-8)) and permanent dentitions (51% vs. 8%, P = 4 × 10(-62)) but not in the mandible. Dental anomalies were more prevalent in cleft lip with cleft palate than other cleft types. More anomalies were seen in the ipsilateral side of the cleft. Agenesis and tooth displacements were the most common dental anomalies found in case probands for primary and permanent dentitions. Compared with controls, unaffected siblings (10% vs. 2%, P = 0.003) and parents (13% vs. 7%, P = 0.001) showed a trend for increased anomalies of the maxillary permanent dentition. Yet, these differences were nonsignificant after multiple-testing correction, suggesting genetic heterogeneity in some families carrying susceptibility to both overt clefts and dental anomalies. Collectively, the findings suggest that most affected families do not have higher genetic risk for dental anomalies than the general population and that the higher prevalence of anomalies in cases is primarily a physical consequence of the cleft and surgical interventions.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients' concerns not being addressed. This study's objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern during clinic visits improves cancer patient quality of life (QOL).Patients and methodsThis single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a "was it worth it" survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups.ResultsOverall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31-87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0-10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow.ConclusionsAlthough we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians.

Project description:ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether individuals with nonsyndromic orofacial clefts (OCs) display a higher frequency of dental anomalies (DAs) when compared with individuals without OCs.MethodsA literature search of indexed databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and LILACS) was conducted without language restriction up to and including February 1, 2020. Cross-referencing was used to further identify articles. Several cleft teams across the United States and Europe were contacted to obtain unpublished data. The eligibility criteria were observational studies with original data that statistically compared individuals with OC without syndromes and those without OC on any type of DA in primary and/or permanent dentition. Random effects meta-analysis through the Mantel-Haenszel estimator was used to evaluate the association between OC and DA based on odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe literature search generated 933 records, and 75 full-text articles were reviewed. Twenty-six studies encompassing 15,213 individuals met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed statistically significant associations between OC and agenesis (OR, 14.2; 95% CI, 9.4 to 21.3), supernumerary teeth (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 3.3 to 9.7), developmental enamel defects (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 3.5 to 9.0), microdontia (OR, 14.8; 95% CI, 4.0 to 54.6), peg-shaped anterior teeth (OR, 12.2; 95% CI, 3.6 to 41.2), taurodontism (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.7), tooth malposition and/or transposition (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.8 to 11.5), tooth rotation (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.2), and tooth impaction (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 12.2). The OR estimates of the reviewed studies exhibited significant heterogeneity (P < 0.0001). No association was observed between OC and fusion and/or gemination.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this study, the available evidence suggests that individuals with OCs are more likely to present with a range of DAs than their unaffected peers.Knowledge transfer statementThe findings of the current review suggest that individuals with orofacial clefts (OCs) are more likely to present with a range of dental anomalies than their unaffected peers. Understanding the association between OCs and dental anomalies is essential in guiding clinicians during treatment-planning procedures and is important in raising our awareness of the possible need for future dental treatment for patients with OCs.