The lifetime direct cost of periodontal treatment:A case study from a norwegian specialist practice

Background: Successful periodontal treatment requires a commitment to regular lifelong maintenance and may be perceived by patients to be costly. This study calculates the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment in the setting of a specialist periodontal practice and investigates the cost implications of choosing not to proceed with such treatment. Methods: Data from patients treated in a specialist practice in Norway were used to calculate the total lifetime cost of periodontal treatment that included baseline periodontal treatment, regular maintenance, retreatment, and replacing teeth lost during maintenance. Incremental costs for alternative strategies based on opting to forego periodontal treatment or maintenance and to replace any teeth lost with either bridgework or implants were calculated. Results: Patients who completed baseline periodontal treatment but did not have any additional maintenance or retreatment could replace only three teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before the cost of replacing additional teeth would exceed the cost of lifetime periodontal treatment. Patients who did not have any periodontal treatment could replace ≤4 teeth with bridgework or implants before a replacement strategy became more expensive. Conclusions: Within the limits of the assumptions made, periodontal treatment in a Norwegian specialist periodontal practice is cost-effective when compared to an approach that relies on opting to replace teeth lost as a result of progressive periodontitis with fixed restorations. In particular, patients who have initial comprehensive periodontal treatment but do not subsequently comply with maintenance could, on average, replace ≤3 teeth with bridgework or two teeth with implants before this approach would exceed the direct cost of lifetime periodontal treatment in the setting of the specialist practice studied. © 2012 American Academy of Periodontology.

Adding metadata to Orc to support reasoning about grid programs

Following earlier work demonstrating the utility of Orc as a means of specifying and reasoning about grid applications we propose the enhancement of such specifications with metadata that provide a means to extend an Orc specification with implementation oriented information. We argue that such specifications provide a useful refinement step in allowing reasoning about implementation related issues ahead of actual implementation or even prototyping. As examples, we demonstrate how such extended specifications can be used for investigating security related issues and for evaluating the cost of handling grid resource faults. The approach emphasises a semi-formal style of reasoning that makes maximum use of programmer domain knowledge and experience.

Developing a best practice model for partnership practice between specialist palliative care and intellectual disability services: a mixed methods study

Background: The lack of access to good quality palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities is highlighted in the international literature. In response, more partnership practice in end-of-life care is proposed. 
Aim: This study aimed to develop a best practice model to guide and promote partnership practice between specialist palliative care and intellectual disability services. 
Design: A mixed methods research design involving two phases was used, underpinned by a conceptual model for partnership practice. 
Setting/participants: Phase 1 involved scoping end-of-life care to people with intellectual disability, based on self-completed questionnaires. In all, 47 of 66 (71.2%) services responded. In Phase 2, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample recruited of 30 health and social care professionals working in intellectual disability and palliative care services, who had provided palliative care to someone with intellectual disability. For both phases, data were collected from primary and secondary care in one region of the United Kingdom. 
Results: In Phase 1, examples of good practice were apparent. However, partnership practice was infrequent and unmet educational needs were identified. Four themes emerged from the interviews in Phase 2: challenges and issues in end-of-life care, sharing and learning, supporting and empowering and partnership in practice. 
Conclusion: Joint working and learning between intellectual disability and specialist palliative care were seen as key and fundamental. A framework for partnership practice between both services has been developed which could have international applicability and should be explored with other services in end-of-life care.