• No results found

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY"

Copied!
7
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

U

NIVERSITY OF

W

ASHINGTON

S

CHOOL OF

D

ENTISTRY

Subject: Quality Assurance

Policy Number:

Effective Date: November 1993

Revision Dates: April 2002

PURPOSE

To develop a systematic and continuous protocol for assessing the patient care delivery system through the collection and analysis of reliable information. GENERAL POLICY

Quality assurance is an on-going evaluation system that focuses on patterns of behavior rather than on isolated instances of behavior. Quality assurance is a mechanism for assessing the quality of care and implementing and evaluating changes in the patient care delivery system to maintain or improve the quality of care. Each service area within the School of Dentistry must play an integral part in the quality assurance system.

The benefits to be derived from a systematic quality assurance program include the documentation of the effectiveness of the educational and patient care programs, the identification of the areas of the educational and patient care programs that could benefit from improvements, and the establishment of a mechanism for on-going identification of strengths and weaknesses that will support plans for development, revision, improvement, and expansion within the University of Washington School of Dentistry educational and patient care programs.

STANDARD 5-1

The dental school conducts a formal system of quality assurance for the patient care program that demonstrates evidence of:

a. standards of care that are patient-centered, focused on comprehensice care and written in a format that facilitates assessment with measurable criteria;

b. an ongoing review of a representative sample of patients and patient records to assess the appropriateness, necessity and quality of the care provided;

c. mechanisms to determine the cause(s) of treatment deficiencies; and d. patient review policies, procedures, outcomes and corrective measures.

(2)

IMPLEMENTATION

The dimensions of quality care have been defined to include structure, process, and outcomes of care. The structural dimension of care includes such factors as

facilities, equipment, organization, administration, and personnel. The process of care refers to issues involved in the delivery of care such as diagnosis, sequence of care, appropriateness of care, and technical skill. This dimension of assessment of care can be performed prior to treatment (prospective reviews), during treatment (concurrent reviews), and following treatment (retrospective reviews). The outcomes of care refer to improvements in oral health, health, or other areas as a result of receiving dental care.

The elements of a quality assurance review in each of these dimensions must include the following:

• selection of an aspect of oral health care to be evaluated

• establishment of criteria and standards for quality oral health care

which will be the basis for the assessment of quality

• comparison of the care/service that has been provided with the

established criteria

• assessment of the quality based on the above comparison and the

established standards

• action on the results of the evaluation to provide positive

reinforcement for quality care or implement modifications to address deficiencies

• assure that actions result in maintenance or improvements in the

quality of care

I. Structure

The Office of Clinical Services (OCS) will evaluate policies, procedures,

facilities, equipment, and personnel involved in the central delivery of oral health care. Each department will evaluate policies, procedures, facilities, equipment, and personnel specific to its delivery of oral health care.

II. Process

The process evaluation of the quality assurance program is primarily built upon the dental record as the primary source of information on the care provided to

(3)

the patient. The process evaluation includes, but is not limited to, chart audits, infection control assessment, and competency/proficiency exams.

A. Office of Clinical Services

On a quarterly basis, as a part of the DENT 551-557 Clinical Practice Management series, the OCS will conduct chart audits that evaluate basic components of care delivery and documentation.

B. Departmental Reviews

On a quarterly basis, in addition to the records assigned for comprehensive care, the departments of Oral Medicine, Prosthodontics, Periodontics, Pediatric Dentistry and Oral Surgery conduct chart audits through faculty evaluation and student self and peer evaluation of the medical/dental history data collection, clinical examination, radiographic examination, and

diagnosis. Patients also receive a thorough exam following the completion of their care (see Appendix A)

C. Health and Safety Task Force

On an ongoing basis, the Health and Safety Task Force will direct the Safety Assistant to present documentation of compliance with infection control and safety policies by faculty, students, and staff. The Health and Safety Task Force shall oversee compliance with Health and Safety regulations.

III. Outcomes

A. Office of Clinical Services

The OCS will conduct patient satisfaction assessments on an annual basis. The OCS will manage the compilation and dissemination of information gathered from the “Patient Satisfaction Survey” (see Appendix B) and the “Patient Comment and Complaint Brochure” (Appendix C).

B. Departments of the School of Dentistry

Each department will develop and submit to the OCS a protocol for post-operative review of treatment by types of procedures to assess the

appropriateness and necessity of the care provided by students and faculty. On an annual basis, the departments will submit a report of the outcomes of the post-operative reviews. The OCS will be responsible for producing fee waiver reports and disseminating this information to the departments. The dissemination of the results of quality assessment activities is essential for the use of the data in quality maintenance and improvement. Each

(4)

activities to the OCS. The OCS will be responsible for the maintenance of a comprehensive file on the quality assessment activities of the School of Dentistry and for publication of results in the Dean’s newsletter.

Appendices: Appendix A, Completed Treatment Review

Appendix B, Patient Satisfaction Survey

Appendix C, Patient Comment and Complaint Brochure

Dean of UW SOD:

Martha Somerman, Dean of the UW School of Dentistry December 22, 2008

(5)

APPENDIX A

Completed Treatment Review University of Washington

School of Dentistry

Date: __________________ Patient #

Faculty: _____________________ Student: __________________

CHIEF COMPLAINT:

Has the complaint been addressed?

O

Yes

O

No

O

Not Applicable

If no, Why not?

O

Beyond Scope

O

Done Elsewhere

O

Overlooked

O

Patient Availability

O

Remission

O

Re-evaluation of need

O

Patient Decision

O

Financial Limitations

O

Medical Restrictions

O

Other _____________

PLANNED CARE:

Has all planned care been provided?

O

Yes

O

No

O

No Plan

If no, Why not?

O

Financial Limits

O

Patient Availability

O

Re-evaluation of need

O

Patient decision

O

Sequence of care not followed

O

Other_____________

SERVICE REVIEW:

O

All Okay

Based on your clinical examination and considering the patient’s oral environmental factors, the care outcome is satisfactory except as indicated below:

Ref. # Department Tooth # Comments on problems? (use“N” for new) code or area

Meets standard of care:

O

Yes

O

No

Comments:

____________________________________________________________________

(6)

APPENDIX B:

PATIENT SATISFACTION SURVEY

WE CARE ABOUT YOUR CARE!

Please take a minute to tell us about your recent experience as a patient at the UW School of Dentistry. Patient responses are used in making changes in how we provide treatment and improve our service. Your feedback is anonymous unless you request a response from us (see bottom of survey).This survey is also available on line at https://catalysttools.washington.edu/survey/jarnold1/38404

Please CHECK only one response to each statement below: Disagree Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Appointment:

1. Appointments were accessible when I needed them. 2. My calls were promptly returned.

My Care Provider:

3. Talked to me with respect. 4. Listened carefully to me.

5. Explained what was going to happen before each procedure.

6. Seemed concerned about not causing me pain. 7. Used sanitary precautions and procedures.

8. Helped me to understand the overall plan for my treatment.

Staff & Faculty:

9. The clinic personnel were courteous & helpful.

General:

10. The fees were reasonable.

11. I plan to continue to get my treatment at the School. 12. Overall, I was satisfied with my dental care.

Additional Comments:

If you would like a response please include your name and address or phone number: _____________________________________

(7)

References

Related documents

On one side, adopting a perlocutionary approach to hate speech, together with a distinction between speech and action and a liberal model of freedom, human rights and harm,

National Conference on Technical Vocational Education, Training and Skills Development: A Roadmap for Empowerment (Dec. 2008): Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department

The results of this study showed that in 2010, in France, about 1 to 10 patients managed for primary lung cancer in the respiratory department of a general hospital died within 1

Background: Previously reported results of a prospective, randomized placebo-controlled study showed that the pollen extract (Cernilton) significantly improved total symptoms, pain,

Graphs showing the percentage change in epithelial expression of the pro-apoptotic markers Bad and Bak; the anti-apoptotic marker Bcl-2; the death receptor Fas; the caspase

MAP: Milk Allergy in Primary Care; CMA: cow’s milk allergy; UK: United Kingdom; US: United States; EAACI: European Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology; NICE:

It was decided that with the presence of such significant red flag signs that she should undergo advanced imaging, in this case an MRI, that revealed an underlying malignancy, which

Despite the fact that pre-committal proceedings involve interpreters in many more cases, that last for many more days and present a lot more challenges, the