OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dental home visits and oral health information, in the form of educational leaflets, in preventing new caries development in young children, compared to those receiving only educational leaflets over a period of two years. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dental home visits.
METHODS: This is a collaborative project with the Oral Health Division of the Ministry of Health Malaysia. The Oral Health Division will provide access to a subsample from the National Oral Health of Preschoolers Survey which was carried out in 2015. The population of interest is children aged 5 and 6 years from kindergartens in the Selangor state of Malaysia. The study adopted a societal perspective for cost-effectiveness analysis and all types of resources that are of value to society will be included in analyzing the costs; such as cost to the patient, cost to the provider or institution, and indirect costs because of loss of productivity.
RESULTS: The trial has been approved by the International Medical University Malaysia's Joint Research and Ethics Committee (Project ID: IMU R157-2014 [File III - 2016]). This trial is currently recruiting participants.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of young children in Malaysia who have been referred to the hospital children's dentistry service for severe caries is disturbing. The cost of dental treatment in young children is high due to the severity of the caries which require an aggressive treatment, and the need for general anesthesia or sedation. This study will provide information on the cost and effectiveness of DHVs in caries prevention of young children in Malaysia.
REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/10053.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in twelve public funded primary care clinics in Malaysia. A total of 1753 medical records were randomly selected in 12 primary care clinics in 2007 and were reviewed by trained family physicians for diagnostic, management and documentation errors, potential errors causing serious harm and likelihood of preventability of such errors.
RESULTS: The majority of patient encounters (81%) were with medical assistants. Diagnostic errors were present in 3.6% (95% CI: 2.2, 5.0) of medical records and management errors in 53.2% (95% CI: 46.3, 60.2). For management errors, medication errors were present in 41.1% (95% CI: 35.8, 46.4) of records, investigation errors in 21.7% (95% CI: 16.5, 26.8) and decision making errors in 14.5% (95% CI: 10.8, 18.2). A total of 39.9% (95% CI: 33.1, 46.7) of these errors had the potential to cause serious harm. Problems of documentation including illegible handwriting were found in 98.0% (95% CI: 97.0, 99.1) of records. Nearly all errors (93.5%) detected were considered preventable.
CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of medical errors was high in primary care clinics particularly with documentation and medication errors. Nearly all were preventable. Remedial intervention addressing completeness of documentation and prescriptions are likely to yield reduction of errors.