Evaluation of the indication for surgical extraction of third molars according to the oral surgeon and the primary care dentist. Experience in the Master of Oral Surgery and Implantology at Barcelona University Dental School

Introduction: Third molar extraction is the most frequent procedure in oral surgery. The present study evaluates the indication of third molar extraction as established by the primary care dentist (PCD) and the oral surgeon, and compares the justification for extraction with the principal reason for patient consultation. Patients and method: A descriptive study was made of 319 patients subjected to surgical removal of a third molar in the context of the Master of Oral Surgery and Implantology (Barcelona University Dental School, Barcelona, Spain) between July 2004 and March 2005. The following parameters were evaluated: sex, age, molar, type of impaction, position according to the classifications of Pell and Gregory and of Winter, and the reasons justifying extraction. Results: The lower third molars were the most commonly extracted molars (73.7%). A total of 69.6% of the teeth were covered by soft tissues only. Fifty-six percent of the lower molars corresponded to Pell and Gregory Class IIB, while 42.1% were in the vertical position. The most common reason for patient reference to our Service of Oral Surgery on the part of the PCD was prophylactic removal (51.0% versus 46.1% in the case of the oral surgeon). Discussion and conclusions. Our results show prophylaxis to be the principal indication of third molar extraction, followed by orthodontic reasons. Regarding third molars with associated clinical symptoms or signs, infectious disease-including pericoronitis- was the pathology most often observed by the oral surgeon, followed by caries. This order of frequency was seen to invert in the case of third molars referred for extraction by the PCD. A vertical position predominated among the third molars with associated pathology

Outpatient Quick Diagnosis Units for the evaluation of suspected severe diseases: an observational, descriptive study

Background: Hospitals in countries with public health systems have recently adopted organizational changes to improve efficiency and resource allocation, and reducing inappropriate hospitalizations has been established as an important goal. AIMS: Our goal was to describe the functioning of a Quick Diagnosis Unit in a Spanish public university hospital after evaluating 1,000 consecutive patients. We also aimed to ascertain the degree of satisfaction among Quick Diagnosis Unit patients and the costs of the model compared to conventional hospitalization practices. DESIGN: Observational, descriptive study. METHODS: Our sample comprised 1,000 patients evaluated between November 2008 and January 2010 in the Quick Diagnosis Unit of a tertiary university public hospital in Barcelona. Included patients were those who had potentially severe diseases and would normally require hospital admission for diagnosis but whose general condition allowed outpatient treatment. We analyzed several variables, including time to diagnosis, final diagnoses and hospitalizations avoided, and we also investigated the mean cost (as compared to conventional hospitalization) and the patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: In 88% of cases, the reasons for consultation were anemia, anorexia-cachexia syndrome, febrile syndrome, adenopathies, abdominal pain, chronic diarrhea and lung abnormalities. The most frequent diagnoses were cancer (18.8%; mainly colon cancer and lymphoma) and Iron-deficiency anemia (18%). The mean time to diagnosis was 9.2 days (range 1 to 19 days). An estimated 12.5 admissions/day in a one-year period (in the internal medicine department) were avoided. In a subgroup analysis, the mean cost per process (admission-discharge) for a conventional hospitalization was 3,416.13 Euros, while it was 735.65 Euros in the Quick Diagnosis Unit. Patients expressed a high degree of satisfaction with Quick Diagnosis Unit care. CONCLUSIONS: Quick Diagnosis Units represent a useful and cost-saving model for the diagnostic study of patients with potentially severe diseases. Future randomized study designs involving comparisons between controls and intervention groups would help elucidate the usefulness of Quick Diagnosis Units as an alternative to conventional hospitalization.

Hospital doctors' views and concerns about pharmacovigilance

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the opinions and concerns of hospital doctors about adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and pharmacovigilance. Methods: A qualitative study was undertaken using focus groups in sessions on pharmacovigilance activities conducted in thirteen clinical services of a tertiary university hospital. A total of 296 physicians participated in these sessions by giving their opinions or expressing their doubts about ADR and pharmacovigilance activities which were recorded by different observers and subsequently analysed. Results: Doctors remarked on: a) the importance, concern, frequency and specific types of ADRs that were observed in clinical practice; b) problems of clinical decision making related to the suspected ADRs; c) methods for improving detection and reporting ADRs; d) monitoring of specific ADRs or ADRs caused by specific drugs; e) and measures to prevent and minimize the risk of ADRs. Physicians expressed doubts related to: a) the basic concepts of ADRs; b) the methods of ADR identification and evaluation; c) the objectives and procedures of pharmacovigilance programmes; d) and the impact of pharmacovigilance activities. Conclusions: Hospital doctors believe that ADRs are a matter for concern in their daily clinical practice, and monitoring ADRs as well as measures for preventing the risk of ADRs are needed. Nevertheless, doctors have doubts about what an ADR is, the accuracy of diagnostic methods, the development of pharmacovigilance activities and their impact on clinical practice. Pharmacovigilance should be better explained through a continuous feedback and close relationship with hospital doctors.