Audit to monitor the uptake of national mouth care guidelines for children and young people being treated for cancer.
ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to review current oral care practices in children being treated for cancer against audit criteria derived from national guidelines, and to compare findings with data from a baseline survey carried out in 2002 prior to implementation of the national guidelines.
A telephone survey was carried out of all 21 haematology-oncology (HO) centres and seven bone marrow transplant (BMT) units within the UK Children's Cancer Study Group focusing on key audit themes of: availability of evidence-based guidelines, oral and dental care prior to and during cancer treatment, oral assessment, prevention and treatment of oral complications.
The national guidelines were used in 19/25 (76%) settings that employed written guidelines. There was little variation in advice given to patients/parents on basic oral hygiene, and this advice was commensurate with guideline recommendations. Inconsistencies in oral care assessment, reported at baseline, remained commonplace across the majority of settings. In only 10/21 HO centres, it was usual practice for children to undergo dental assessment prior to commencing cancer treatment, indicating no improvement since baseline survey. Few therapies outside of the guideline recommendations were being used. The routine use of preventive nystatin, not recommended in the guideline, had significantly decreased from baseline (by 40%).
Uptake of national guidelines by HO/BMT settings was good however certain oral care practices fell short of the guideline recommendations. Routine dental checks need to be embedded in practice. Further consideration is needed as to how oral assessment might be used more effectively in informing treatment.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Clinical audit is a quality improvement process that aims to improve patient care through a systematic review of care against explicit criteria. It is a cyclic and multidisciplinary process which involves a series of steps from planning the audit through measuring the performance to implementing and sustaining the change. Although audit contains some facets of research, it is essential to understand the difference between the two. Auditing can be done right from the record maintaining, diagnosis and treatment and postoperative evaluation and follow-up. The immense potential of clinical audit can be utilized only when open-mindedness and innovativeness are encouraged and evidence-based work culture is cultivated.Dental research journal 11/2012; 9(6):665-70.This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched formatRG Format enables you to read in context with side-by-side figures, citations, and feedback from experts in your field.
SourceAvailable from: Takeshi Kondo[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: As the safety of folinic acid administration and its efficacy for reducing the toxicity of MTX remain controversial, we assessed the effect of folinic acid administration after MTX treatment for GVHD prophylaxis on the incidence of oral mucositis and acute GVHD. We retrospectively analyzed data for 118 patients who had undergone allogeneic hematopoietic SCT and had received MTX for GVHD prophylaxis. Multivariate analysis showed that systemic folinic acid administration significantly reduced the incidence of severe oral mucositis (odds ratio (OR)=0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04-0.73, P=0.014). There was also a tendency for a lower incidence of severe oral mucositis in patients who received folinic acid mouthwash (OR=0.39, 95%CI 0.15-1.00, P=0.051). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of acute GVHD between patients who received systemic folinic acid administration and those who did not (P=0.88). Systemic folinic acid administration and mouthwash appear to be useful for reducing the incidence of severe oral mucositis in patients who have received allogeneic hematopoietic SCT using MTX as GVHD prophylaxis.Bone marrow transplantation 03/2011; 47(2):258-64. DOI:10.1038/bmt.2011.53 · 3.00 Impact Factor