THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ORAL
CANCER SCREENING
The clinical audit was undertaken to evaluate the quality of service
that has been provided with respect to the screening of oral cancer and compare
the standard attained to what was felt would be acceptable. Once this had been done, it would be decided
if any changes were required and how they would be implemented within the
practice without affecting the normal running of it.
The main objective of this audit was to implement changes before the
second cycle in order to improve the screening of oral cancer at the practice
if required. If the standard required
was achieved in the first cycle then changes were to be implemented which could
further enhance the service that we provide to the patients.
Some background reading was undertaken to illustrate the importance of
the screening of oral cancer by general dental practitioners. A comparative study between GDP’s and GMP’s
demonstrated that GDP’s were more likely to identify alcohol as a risk factor
(GMP’s being as low as 45%), 90%+ of both fields identified smoking as a risk
factor. GDP’s are more likely to only
examine tooth bearing and denture bearing areas (not the high risk sites e.g.
floor of mouth) and GMP’s are better at referring early and suggesting
malignancy as a diagnosis probably due to their lack of knowledge/ability to
recognise but referral patterns differ all around the country.
1. Whether or not a soft
tissue examination had been carried out
2. Had it been identified
whether or not the patient was a smoker?
3. If the patient was a
smoker, had the amount they smoked been recorded?
4. Had it been identified
whether or not the patient consumed alcohol?
5. If the patient was a
consumer, had the amount they drink been recorded?
The standard that was agreed on in the practice was that 95% of all
patients should be having a soft tissue examination and that the drinking and
smoking histories were satisfactorily recorded for >90% of all patients.
Based on the results of cycle 1 and, following a staff training session, the following
changes were implemented before carrying out cycle 2.
1. If there is a clinical finding on the examination of soft
tissues, it will be recorded using a mouth map.
2. All high risk patients are required to be identified and the
agreed format for their recognition is smoking 20+ cigarettes a day as well as
consuming alcohol. This is to be
recorded in the medical history by shading in one of the top corners of the
medical history card.
3. The required standard must be attained by the practice
working as a team.
The second audit cycle was carried out using 50 random patient record
cards as selected by the practice manager for the month of January.
From the results, it is evident that before the staff training exercise
the oral cancer screening was of an unsatisfactory level. However, using the
information collected and a paper released by the BDA, a management strategy
was developed and the roles of each of the dental team were clearly identified
and an attempt is made to try and ask all patients whether or not they smoke
for the purpose of a study.
The idea of carrying out an audit on the screening of oral cancer first
arose from an article found in the BDA news.
It was found that a “help2quit”
programme in
From our study, it can be concluded that the quality of patient care has
improved with respect to oral cancer screening at the practice at which the
audit was carried out. Changes
implemented have not caused any major disruption to the practice and have now
become a permanent feature of the practice policy. The audit is to be repeated in 3 months time
and then yearly to ensure the standards are maintained, although further
development in enhancing care is currently under way (leaflet).
It is important
that smoking/drinking cessation within the area is enhanced, and steps are
already being taken in the area of
Hopefully the situation will change in the
future.
Cycle 1:
|
|
Female |
Male |
Total |
|
No. of Patients |
26 |
24 |
50 |
|
STE examinations carried out? |
21 |
22 |
43 |
|
Alcohol consumption noted |
11 |
16 |
27 |
|
16/27 patients consumed alcohol. Was the amount queried? |
3 |
13 |
16 |
|
Smoking history noted |
6 |
13 |
19 |
|
9/19 patients asked smoked. Was the amount queried? |
2 |
7 |
9 |
Analysis of results from Cycle 1:
Cycle 2:
|
|
Female |
Male |
Total |
|
No. of Patients |
28 |
22 |
50 |
|
STE examinations carried out? |
28 |
22 |
50 |
|
Alcohol consumption noted |
28 |
21 |
49 |
|
26/49 patients consumed alcohol. Was the amount queried? |
8 |
16 |
24 |
|
Smoking history noted |
25 |
20 |
45 |
|
16/45 patients asked smoked. Was the amount queried? |
10 |
5 |
15 |
Analysis of results from Cycle 2: