Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Research
  • Published:

A RAND/UCLA appropriateness method study to identify the dimensions of quality in primary dental care and quality measurement indicators

British Dental Journal volume 228, pages 83–88 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives Quality measures are increasingly used for quality measurement and improvement in primary dental care. Currently there is no consensus on a core set of quality measures that may be used in primary dental care or of the dimensions of quality important in dentistry. The objective of this study was to use a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to help establish such a consensus.

Methods A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to rate dimensions of quality and quality indicators derived from the literature. Nineteen dimensions of quality and 260 quality indicators were rated by a panel of nine dentists using an online questionnaire and face-to-face meeting.

Results Seventy-nine quality statements were rated as clear, necessary and feasible for use as a quality measure by the panel, from which 45 composite measures emerged. With regard to the dimensions of quality, the dimensions of the Institute of Medicine definition of quality were rated highly, alongside further dimensions of technical quality, appropriateness, comprehensiveness and coordination, and continuity of care.

Conclusions This consensus study has identified a core set of quality indicators. This is a key first step toward the development of a comprehensive set of quality indicators.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Donabedian A. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. Health Administration Press, 1980.

  2. Stanton M W. Improving access and quality: Research in action. 2014. Available online at https://archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/costs/dentalcare/index.html# (accessed 6 January 2019).

  3. Byrne M J, Tickle M, Glenny A M, Campbell S, Goodwin T, O'Malley L. A systematic review of quality measures used in primary care dentistry. Int Dent J 2019; 69: 252−264.

  4. Righolt A J, Sidorenkov G, Faggion Jr C M, Listl S, Duijster D. Quality measures for dental care: A systematic review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2019; 47: 12-23.

  5. Kalenderian E, Ramoni R, Spallek H, White J, Walji M. Quality measures everywhere: The case for parsimony. J Am Dent Assoc 2018; 149: 322-326.

  6. Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academies Press, 2001.

  7. Campbell S, Tickle M. What is quality primary dental care? Br Dent J 2013; 215: 135-139.

  8. Bell B G, Spencer R, Avery A J, Campbell S M. Tools for measuring patient safety in primary care settings using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. BMC Fam Pract 2014; 15: 110.

  9. Bell B G, Spencer R, Marsden K et al. Building a patient safety toolkit for use in general practice. InnovAiT 2016; 9: 557-562.

  10. 11. Campbell S M, Bell B G, Marsden K et al. A patient safety toolkit for family practices. J Patient Saf 2018; DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000471.

  11. Campbell S M, Kontopantelis E, Hannon K, Burke M, Barber A, Lester H E. Framework and indicator testing protocol for developing and piloting quality indicators for the UK quality and outcomes framework. BMC Fam Pract 2011; 12: 85.

  12. Campbell S M, Braspenning J, Hutchinson A, Marshall M N. Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. BMJ 2003; 326: 816-819.

  13. Fitch K, Bernstein S J, Aguilar M D et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual. RAND Corporation, 2001. DOI: MR1269.

  14. Herndon J B, Crall J J, Aravamudhan K et al. Developing and testing paediatric oral healthcare quality measures. J Public Health Dent 2015; 75: 191-201.

  15. Spencer R, Bell B, Avery A J, Gookey G, Campbell S M. Identification of an updated set of prescribing-safety indicators for GPs. Br J Gen Pract 2014; 64: e181-e190.

  16. Shekelle P G, Kahan J P, Bernstein S J, Leape L L, Kamberg C J, Park R E. The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1888-1895.

  17. Escaron A L, Chang Weir R, Stanton P, Vangala S, Grogan T R, Clarke R M. Testing an adapted modified Delphi method: synthesizing multiple stakeholder ratings of health care service effectiveness. Health Promot Pract 2016; 17: 217-225.

  18. Khanna D, FitzGerald J D, Khanna P P et al. 2012 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for management of gout. Part 1: Systematic nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapeutic approaches to hyperuricaemia. Arthritis Care Res 2012; 64: 1431-1446.

  19. Berian J R, Baker T L, Rosenthal R A et al. Application of the RAND-UCLA appropriateness methodology to a large multidisciplinary stakeholder group evaluating the validity and feasibility of patient-centreed standards in geriatric surgery. Health Serv Res 2018; 53: 3350-3372.

  20. Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care 2001; 13: 475-480.

  21. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 921-930.

  22. British Society of Periodontology. Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) 2019 Available online at: https://www.bsperio.org.uk/publications/downloads/115_170601_a115_090048_bsp-bpe-guidelines-2019.pdf. (accessed 10 01 20)

  23. Corah N L, O'Shea R M, Pace L F, Seyrek S K. Development of a patient measure of satisfaction with the dentist: the Dental Visit Satisfaction Scale. J Behav Med 1984; 7: 367-373.

  24. Davies A R, Ware Jr J E. Measuring patient satisfaction with dental care. Soc Sci Med A 1981; 15: 751-760.

  25. Slade G D. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997; 25: 284-290.

  26. Sutton J C, Fay R M, Huynh C P, Johnson C D, Zhu L, Quock R L. Dental faculty accuracy when using diagnostic codes: a pilot study. J Dent Educ 2017; 81: 554-560.

  27. Ramoni R B, Etolue J, Tokede O, et al. Adoption of dental innovations: The case of a standardized dental diagnostic terminology. J Am Dent Assoc 2017; 148: 319-327.

  28. Fiala T G. What do patients want? technical quality versus functional quality: A literature review for plastic surgeons. Aesthet Surg J 2012; 32: 751-759.

  29. Chang J T, Hays R D, Shekelle P G et al. Patients' global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care. Ann Intern Med 2006;145: 635-636.

  30. Voinea-Griffin A, Brad Rindal D, Fellows J L et al. Pay-for-performance in dentistry: what we know. J Healthc Qual 2010; 32: 51-58.

  31. Brocklehurst P, Price J, Glenny A M et al. The effect of different methods of remuneration on the behaviour of primary care dentists. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; CD009853.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding to remunerate participants for their time was provided by the Patient Safety Centre and from funds held by the University of Manchester School of Dentistry. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manchester, School of Dentistry, Manchester, UK

    Matthew Byrne, Lucy O’Malley & Anne-Marie Glenny

  2. Professor of Primary Care Research, Manchester, UK

    Stephen Campbell

  3. Professor of Dental Public Health & Primary Care, School of Dentistry, Manchester, UK

    Martin Tickle

Authors
  1. Matthew Byrne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lucy O’Malley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne-Marie Glenny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Tickle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Byrne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Byrne, M., O’Malley, L., Glenny, AM. et al. A RAND/UCLA appropriateness method study to identify the dimensions of quality in primary dental care and quality measurement indicators. Br Dent J 228, 83–88 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-1200-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-1200-z

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links