Description
Presentation Blocks: 03-24-2018 - Saturday - 11:00 AM - 12:15 PM

Title: Clinical Impact of Electronic Data Capture: The National Dental PBRN

Authors:

Rita Cacciato (Presenter)
University of Rochester

Natalia Tommasi, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research
Meredith Buchberg, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio
Hannah Van Lith, HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research
Deborah McEdward, University of Florida
Shermetria Massingale, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Claudia Carcelen, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Gregg Gilbert, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Jeffrey Fellows, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research
The National Dental PBRN, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Abstract:

Objectives: Using Electronic Data Systems (EDS) in practice-based research can reduce the burden to clinical staff from collecting clinical information, compared to paper-based data forms. Yet, challenges remain. Our objective is to describe Regional Coordinators’ (RCs) and practitioners’ experiences with using EDS in a clinical setting amid the Predicting Outcome of Root Canal Treatment (PREDICT) Study in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network (www.NationalDentalPBRN.org) RCs work closely with dental office staff to ensure fidelity, manage data collection and quality, and troubleshoot implementation issues.

Methods: PREDICT is a multi-center, 12-month prospective, observational cohort study of adult patients who completed an initial orthograde root canal treatment (RCT) by U.S. general dentists and endodontists participating in the network. All data were captured electronically at baseline (RCT initiation) visit, with follow-up data collected at 1 week, 6 and 12 months following RCT completion. We use descriptive analyses of RCs’ experiences with the EDS with practitioners to assess strengths and limitations of electronic versus paper data collection forms, and describe lessons learned for future clinical studies.

Results: A total of 119 general dentists and 53 endodontists consented 1,883 patients. Twenty-three regional coordinators accessed the system for practitioners and patients tracking purposes. Feedback from dental practitioners and RCs indicate several advantages and disadvantages with EDS compared to paper forms. Advantages include: lessening time burden on busy practices, such as incorporating consent/HIPAA attestation into the system; reducing costs associated with printing materials; and reducing RC time devoted to data cleaning and quality assurance. Challenges include: recruiting non-tech-savvy practitioners and patients; dealing with frustrated practitioners and patients having Wi-Fi or server connection issues; limiting patient enrollment due to tablet availability; and managing security risks (e.g., tablet theft).

Conclusions: Results from the PREDICT study suggest EDS is an effective method for data collection in clinical settings. Support: U19-DE-22516.

Schedule