Audit to assess the quality of 916 prosthetic prescriptions of removable partial dentures.
10.7518/hxkq.2023.2021565
- Author:
Na ZHANG
1
;
Bochun MAO
2
;
Yunhan DAI
1
;
Shengkai CHEN
1
;
Ziying YOU
1
;
Junjing ZHANG
1
;
Xin CHEN
1
;
Haoyue DONG
1
;
Li YUE
1
;
Haiyang YU
1
Author Information
1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
2. Dept. of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
communication;
dental laboratory;
prosthetic prescription;
removable partial dentures
- MeSH:
Humans;
Denture Design;
Denture, Partial, Removable;
Prescriptions
- From:
West China Journal of Stomatology
2023;41(3):315-322
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES:The objectives of this study were to assess the quality of prosthetic prescriptions of removable partial dentures (RPDs) and to analyze the current situation of the communication and information delivery between clinicians and technicians.
METHODS:All RPD prosthetic prescriptions received by a major dental laboratory in 4 weeks were involved in a quality audit, and the prescriptions were divided into three groups in accordance with the grades of clients. The filling of prosthetic prescriptions was recorded. The items in the prescriptions for audit included the general information of the patient, the general information of the clinician, the design diagram information, other detailed information, and the return date. The prescriptions were categorized into four levels on the basis of their quality by two quality inspectors who have been working for more than 10 years.
RESULTS:A total of 916 prescriptions were collected and assessed. The names in the general information of the patient and the clinician were filled out best, both at the rate of 97.6% (n=894). The return date was filled out worst, only at the rate of 6.4% (n=59). Of those prescriptions, 86.8% (n=795) exhibited inadequate design diagram information. The results of the quality assessment demonstrated that 74.2% of prescriptions were assessed as noncompliant ones and failed to meet the acceptable clinical quality standard.
CONCLUSIONS:At present, the overall quality of RPD prosthetic prescriptions is poor. The responsibilities of clinicians and technicians are unclear, and the communication between them is not ideal.
