Advertisement

Compliance with the minimum dataset of the British Orthodontic Society/British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons for record keeping for orthognathic patients: Retrospective comparative multicentre audit

  • F. Dewi
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XY, UK. Tel.: +44 02920 742443.
    Affiliations
    University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    d Formerly SpR in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
    S.D. Jones
    Footnotes
    d Formerly SpR in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
    Affiliations
    Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    e Formerly SpR in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK.
    G.A. Ghaly
    Footnotes
    e Formerly SpR in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK.
    Affiliations
    John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • A.J. Cronin
    Affiliations
    University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    d Formerly SpR in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
    e Formerly SpR in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK.

      Abstract

      Accurate and timely collection of clinical records is of utmost importance in planning, evaluating, and auditing orthognathic operations. The minimum dataset guidelines of the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) and the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) were published in an attempt to standardise the collection of clinical records of patients having orthognathic operations. This multicentre retrospective audit aimed to assess and compare compliance with the guidelines in 3 maxillofacial units over a 1-year period. A total of 105 cases were reviewed. Compliance varied. Documentation of altered sensation was consistently poor and too many unnecessary radiographs were taken. There may be a need to circulate the guidelines again to increase awareness and reduce variability between centres.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cunningham S.J.
        • Hunt N.P.
        • Feinmann C.
        Perceptions of outcome following orthognathic surgery.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 34: 210-213
        • Cunningham S.J.
        • Hunt N.P.
        • Feinmann C.
        Psychological aspects of orthognathic surgery: a review of the literature.
        Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1995; 10: 159-172
        • Oland J.
        • Jensen J.
        • Elklit A.
        • et al.
        Motives for surgical-orthodontic treatment and effect of treatment on psychosocial well-being and satisfaction: a prospective study of 118 patients.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69: 104-113
        • Murphy C.
        • Kearns G.
        • Sleeman D.
        • et al.
        The clinical relevance of orthognathic surgery on quality of life.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 40: 926-930
        • Ahmad S.
        • Thom A.R.
        Audit of compliance of orthognathic record with the BOS/BAOMS orthognathic minimum data set.
        Br Orthod Soc Clin Eff Bull. 2006; 19: 3
      1. The ionising radiation (medical exposure) regulations 2000. Available from URL: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1059/contents/made.

        • Proffit W.R.
        • Turvey T.A.
        • Phillips C.
        Orthognathic surgery: a hierarchy of stability.
        Int J Adult Orthod Orthognath Surg. 1996; 11: 191-204
        • Hack G.A.
        • de Mol van Otterloo J.J.
        • Nanda R.
        Long-term stability and prediction of soft tissue changes after Le Fort I surgery.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104: 544-555
        • Lee E.G.
        • Ryan F.S.
        • Shute J.
        • et al.
        The impact of altered sensation affecting the lower lip after orthognathic treatment.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69: e431-e445
        • Panula K.
        • Finne K.
        • Oikarinen K.
        Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery: a review of 655 patients.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001; 59: 1128-1137
        • Colella G.
        • Cannavale R.
        • Vicidomini A.
        • et al.
        Neurosensory disturbance of the inferior alveolar nerve after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: a systematic review.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007; 65: 1707-1715
        • Stirling J.
        • Latchford G.
        • Morris D.O.
        • et al.
        Elective orthognathic treatment decision making: a survey of patient reasons and experiences.
        J Orthod. 2007; 34: 113-127