Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14(02): 245-253
DOI: 10.1055/a-2011-8167
Research Article

The Application of Dental Fluoride Varnish in Children: A Low Cost, High-Value Implementation Aided by Passive Clinical Decision Support

Paul J. Lukac 
1   Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States
2   Office of Health Informatics and Analytics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Douglas Bell
3   Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Priya Sreedharan
2   Office of Health Informatics and Analytics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Jeffrey A. Gornbein
4   Department of Biostatics, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Carlos Lerner
1   Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was supported by NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) UCLA CTSI grant number: TL1TR001883.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Fluoride is vital in the prevention of dental caries in children. In 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force deemed fluoride varnish a recommended preventive service (grade B). Electronic health record-based clinical decision support (CDS) tools have shown variable ability to alter physicians' ordering behaviors.

Objectives This study aimed to increase the application of fluoride varnish in children while analyzing the effect of two passive CDS tools—an order set and a note template.

Methods Data on outpatient pediatric visits over an 18-month period before and after CDS implementation (October 15, 2020–April 15, 2022) were queried, while trends in application rate of fluoride were examined. We constructed a multiple logistic regression model with a primary outcome of whether a patient received fluoride at his/her visit. The primary predictor was a “phase” variable representing the CDS implemented. Physician interaction with CDS as well as the financial effects of the resulting service use were also examined.

Results There were 3,049 well-child visits of children aged 12 months to 5 years. The addition of a fluoride order to a “Well Child Check” order set led to a 10.6% increase in ordering over physician education alone (25.4 vs. 14.8%, p = 0.001), while the insertion of fluoride-specific text to drop-down lists in clinical notes led to a 6.2% increase (31.5 vs. 25.4%, p = 0.005). Whether a patient received topical fluoride was positively associated with order set implementation (odds ratio [OR] = 5.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.20–8.21) and fluoride-specific drop-down lists (OR = 7.81, 95% CI: 5.41–11.28). Female providers were more likely to use order sets when ordering fluoride (56.2 vs. 40.9% for males, p ≤ 0.0001). Added revenue totaled $15,084.

Conclusion The targeted use of order sets and note templates was positively associated with the ordering of topical fluoride by physicians.

Keywords

clinical decision support - electronic health record - fluoride

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This study was conducted for quality improvement and deemed exempt from review by the University of California, Los Angeles Institutional Review Board.




Publication History

Received: 16 August 2022

Accepted: 10 January 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
12 January 2023

Article published online:
29 March 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Clark MB, Keels MA, Slayton RL. SECTION ON ORAL HEALTH. Fluoride use in caries prevention in the primary care setting. Pediatrics 2020; 146 (06) e2020034637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Seow WK. Early childhood caries. Pediatr Clin North Am 2018; 65 (05) 941-954
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Chou R, Pappas M, Dana T. et al. Screening and interventions to prevent dental caries in children younger than 5 years: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2021; 326 (21) 2179-2192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bangar S, Neumann A, White JM. et al. Caries risk documentation and prevention: eMeasures for dental electronic health records. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (01) 80-90
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. USPSTF: Who We Are & How We Work. Accessed May 13, 2022, at: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/sites/default/files/inline-files/uspstf-who-we-are-how-we-work_1.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. A & B Recommendations. Accessed May 13, 2022, at: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation-topics/uspstf-a-and-b-recommendations
    PubMed
  • 7 Prevention of dental caries in children from birth through five years of age: recommendation statement. Am Fam Physician 2015; 91 (03) 190A
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bruno C, Pearson SA, Daniels B, Buckley NA, Schaffer A, Zoega H. Passing the acid test? Evaluating the impact of national education initiatives to reduce proton pump inhibitor use in Australia. BMJ Qual Saf 2020; 29 (05) 365-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ 1998; 317 (7156): 465-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Spiegel MC, Simpson AN, Philip A. et al. Development and implementation of a clinical decision support-based initiative to drive intravenous fluid prescribing. Int J Med Inform 2021; 156: 104619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bell GC, Crews KR, Wilkinson MR. et al. Development and use of active clinical decision support for preemptive pharmacogenomics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (e1): e93-e99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ancker JS, Edwards A, Nosal S, Hauser D, Mauer E, Kaushal R. with the HITEC Investigators. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 (01) 36-017
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Escovedo C, Bell D, Cheng E. et al. Noninterruptive clinical decision support decreases ordering of respiratory viral panels during influenza season. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (02) 315-322
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 McGinn TG, McCullagh L, Kannry J. et al. Efficacy of an evidence-based clinical decision support in primary care practices: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173 (17) 1584-1591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Goetz C, Rotman SR, Hartoularos G, Bishop TF. The effect of charge display on cost of care and physician practice behaviors: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30 (06) 835-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dexter PR, Perkins SM, Maharry KS, Jones K, McDonald CJ. Inpatient computer-based standing orders vs physician reminders to increase influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates: a randomized trial. JAMA 2004; 292 (19) 2366-2371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Demakis JG, Beauchamp C, Cull WL. et al. Improving residents' compliance with standards of ambulatory care: results from the VA Cooperative Study on Computerized Reminders. JAMA 2000; 284 (11) 1411-1416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lunt RC, Law DB. A review of the chronology of eruption of deciduous teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1974; 89 (04) 872-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Occupational Employment and Wages. May 2021. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Updated March 31, 2022. Accessed November 14, 2022, at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes319092.htm
    PubMed
  • 20 Occupational Employment and Wages. May 2021. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Updated March 31, 2022. Accessed November 14, 2022, at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes292061.htm
    PubMed
  • 21 Olson J, Hollenbeak C, Donaldson K, Abendroth T, Castellani W. Default settings of computerized physician order entry system order sets drive ordering habits. J Pathol Inform 2015; 6: 16-3539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chan AJ, Chan J, Cafazzo JA. et al. Order sets in health care: a systematic review of their effects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28 (03) 235-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Khairat S, Coleman C, Ottmar P, Bice T, Koppel R, Carson SS. Physicians' gender and their use of electronic health records: findings from a mixed-methods usability study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (12) 1505-1514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Grogan EL, Speroff T, Deppen SA. et al. Improving documentation of patient acuity level using a progress note template. J Am Coll Surg 2004; 199 (03) 468-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Seligson MT, Lyden SP, Caputo FJ, Kirksey L, Rowse JW, Smolock CJ. Improving clinical documentation of evaluation and management care and patient acuity improves reimbursement as well as quality metrics. J Vasc Surg 2021; 74 (06) 2055-2062
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hye RJ, Inui TS, Anthony FF. et al. A multiregional registry experience using an electronic medical record to optimize data capture for longitudinal outcomes in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2015; 61 (05) 1160-1166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Shirazian S, Wang R, Moledina D. et al. A pilot trial of a computerized renal template note to improve resident knowledge and documentation of kidney disease. Appl Clin Inform 2013; 4 (04) 528-540
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Linder JA, Schnipper JL, Tsurikova R. et al. Documentation-based clinical decision support to improve antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Inform Prim Care 2009; 17 (04) 231-240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Litvin CB, Ornstein SM, Wessell AM, Nemeth LS, Nietert PJ. Adoption of a clinical decision support system to promote judicious use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections in primary care. Int J Med Inform 2012; 81 (08) 521-526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Edelstein BL, Chinn CH. Update on disparities in oral health and access to dental care for America's children. Acad Pediatr 2009; 9 (06) 415-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Savage MF, Lee JY, Kotch JB, Vann Jr WF. Early preventive dental visits: effects on subsequent utilization and costs. Pediatrics 2004; 114 (04) e418-e423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Scherrer CR, Naavaal S. Cost-savings of fluoride varnish application in primary care for Medicaid-enrolled children in Virginia. J Pediatr 2019; 212: 201-207 .e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar