Abstract
Aim
The aim of this study was to identify and survey dental hygienists and therapists working in direct access practices in the UK, obtain their views on its benefits and disadvantages, establish which treatments they provided, and what barriers they had encountered.
Method
The study used a purposive sample of GDC-registered hygienists and therapists working in practices offering direct access, identified through a ‘Google’ search. An online survey was set up through the University of Edinburgh, and no-responses followed up by post.
Results
The initial search identified 243 individuals working in direct access practices. Where a practice listed more than one hygienist/therapist, one was randomly selected. This gave a total of 179 potential respondents. Eighty six responses were received, representing a response rate of 48%. A large majority of respondents (58, 73%) were favourable in their view of the GDC decision to allow direct access, and most thought advantages outnumbered disadvantages for patients, hygienists, therapists and dentists. There were no statistically significant differences in views between hygienists and therapists. Although direct access patients formed a small minority of their caseload for most respondents, it is estimated that on average respondents saw approximately 13 per month. Treatment was mainly restricted to periodontal work, irrespective of whether the respondent was singly or dually qualified. One third of respondents reported encountering barriers to successful practice, including issues relating to teamwork and dentists’ unfavourable attitudes. However, almost two thirds
(64%) felt that direct access had enhanced their job satisfaction, and 45% felt their clinical skills had increased.
Discussion
Comments were mainly positive, but sometimes raised worrying issues, for example in respect to training, lack of dental nurse support and the limited availability of periodontal treatment under NHS regulations.
The aim of this study was to identify and survey dental hygienists and therapists working in direct access practices in the UK, obtain their views on its benefits and disadvantages, establish which treatments they provided, and what barriers they had encountered.
Method
The study used a purposive sample of GDC-registered hygienists and therapists working in practices offering direct access, identified through a ‘Google’ search. An online survey was set up through the University of Edinburgh, and no-responses followed up by post.
Results
The initial search identified 243 individuals working in direct access practices. Where a practice listed more than one hygienist/therapist, one was randomly selected. This gave a total of 179 potential respondents. Eighty six responses were received, representing a response rate of 48%. A large majority of respondents (58, 73%) were favourable in their view of the GDC decision to allow direct access, and most thought advantages outnumbered disadvantages for patients, hygienists, therapists and dentists. There were no statistically significant differences in views between hygienists and therapists. Although direct access patients formed a small minority of their caseload for most respondents, it is estimated that on average respondents saw approximately 13 per month. Treatment was mainly restricted to periodontal work, irrespective of whether the respondent was singly or dually qualified. One third of respondents reported encountering barriers to successful practice, including issues relating to teamwork and dentists’ unfavourable attitudes. However, almost two thirds
(64%) felt that direct access had enhanced their job satisfaction, and 45% felt their clinical skills had increased.
Discussion
Comments were mainly positive, but sometimes raised worrying issues, for example in respect to training, lack of dental nurse support and the limited availability of periodontal treatment under NHS regulations.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 191-197 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | British Dental Journal |
| Volume | 222 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 10 Feb 2017 |