Keywords
interprofessional care, diabetes mellitus, oral health, periodontitis, primary healthcare, general practice, primary dental
This article is included in the Global Public Health gateway.
interprofessional care, diabetes mellitus, oral health, periodontitis, primary healthcare, general practice, primary dental
Current evidence shows a bidirectional link between diabetes and chronic periodontal disease (periodontitis). Diabetes is associated with increased risk of an inflammatory response to periodontal micro-biota. Severe periodontitis is three- to four-times more prevalent in people with diabetes. Periodontitis on the other hand seems to affect blood glucose levels in patients with diabetes. Severity of periodontitis may be associated with increased diabetes episodes requiring hospitalisation1–3. People with both diabetes and periodontitis have increased risk of premature tooth loss, poorer diet, poorer diabetes control and more cardiovascular complications. In the 1990s, chronic periodontitis was added as the sixth complication of diabetes mellitus2.
Both Australian and international guidelines recommend that diabetes care providers should undertake oral health reviews and provide dental referrals if required. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) recommends to assess the oral health of patients with diabetes4. The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) recommends the strengthening of interdisciplinary collaboration to improve general patient outcomes and as a primary means to prevent periodontitis for patients with diabetes5. Despite these recommendations, the potential for screening patients with diabetes for early management of gum problems is often overlooked in primary care. There are siloes in practice and a lack of collaboration between general practice and oral health professionals6–8. Consistent with current guidelines, general practitioners (GPs) usually prescribe short-term pain relief and/or antibiotics for teeth and gum issues and may advise patients to see a dentist. This is usually the extent of their involvement with oral health management. Similarly, diabetes screening is rarely performed by OHPs despite research showing significant proportions of dental patients have undiagnosed diabetes or pre-diabetes risks3,9,10.
Much of the current literature nonetheless focuses on assessment of diabetes screening in dental settings or the evolution of the dental profession3,9,11. Some have also explored the views of healthcare professionals on integration of diabetes and periodontitis management including some recent work conducted at the Centre for Oral Health Outcomes, Research Translation and Evaluation at Western Sydney University in New South Wales12–17. However, limited research on interprofessional diabetes and oral health care has been conducted in Victoria or focused on public community health service (CHS) setting.
This study aimed to explore the knowledge, practice and attitude of Victorian general practice professionals (GPPs) [including GPs, primary health care nurses (PCNs), diabetes educators (DEs)] and oral health professionals (OHPs) [including dentists (Ds), dental hygienists (DHs), oral health therapists (OHTs), dental therapists (DTs) and dental assistants (DAs)] in managing diabetes and periodontitis and their views on interprofessional care in CHS setting.
This research was approved by human research ethics committees at University of Melbourne (ID 1750835), Deakin University (ID 2018-190) and La Trobe University (ID 1750835).
Written informed consent from the participants for the publication of findings from this research was obtained. In accordance with the requirements of the ethics committee and the approved research protocol, details that would potentially identify participants due to the small sample size have been removed or replaced with codes in this publication.
This is a sequential mixed-methods exploratory study. Quantitative online surveys and qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals. Quantitative analysis reported descriptive statistics only. Qualitative analysis used a mixed inductive and deductive approach to explore the experiences of healthcare professionals and reporting was guided by the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research checklist (COREQ)18.
An advisory group guided the implementation of the study. It consisted of representatives from consumers, practitioners (GP, DE, general dentist, periodontist, oral health therapist) and managers of the CHSs involved.
PL is an academic primary care researcher; EB is a diabetes nurse educator; HC is an academic dental public health researcher; MC and AT were honours research students and RM was a public general dentist at the time of the project. The team has an interest in promoting interprofessional primary healthcare.
GPPs and OHPs were recruited purposively from four CHSs in Victoria. The project was presented by the research team to eligible staff at two CHSs; email invitations with a short introduction video were sent to eligible staff via their management teams at the other two. Staff were assured that participation was voluntary. Project description and an anonymous survey link were given to all participants.
On completion of the survey, participants’ contact details were sought if they opted to participate in follow-up interviews. A matrix (gender, age, professional role) was used to select, for the interviews, a broad representation of those who provided contact details to ensure maximum variation.
Two online surveys (one for GPPs; one for OHPs) were conducted via the REDCap electronic data capture tool hosted at The University of Melbourne platform19. The questions (Table 1 and Table 2) were developed based on a review of the literature and guided by our advisory group. They were piloted with GP registrars, academic nurses and dentists in the research team’s network before the surveys were rolled out.
Likert scales gauged participants’ agreement with statements relating to confidence, current practice and interprofessional collaboration in oral health or diabetes management and perceived feasibility of screening for periodontitis or diabetes within routine practice. Data were analyzed in Microsoft Excel (2017) (RRID:SCR_016137) to produce descriptive statistics. Google Sheets (RRID:SCR_017679) is a free alternative.
Participants were asked to opt into interviews to explain their survey responses, identify barriers to diabetes and oral management, and suggest ways to improve interprofessional diabetes and oral health management (Table 3 and Table 4). Author AT interviewed GPPs whilst author MC interviewed OHPs either by phone or in-person at the participants’ practice. Both were trained by author PL in interview techniques and did practice interviews with authors PL and HC. Questions were pilot tested with students in the Department of General Practice Honours student cohort prior to conducting the interviews.
Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and field notes were taken. Transcripts were offered to participants for review before being imported into QSR International's NVivo 12 qualitative analysis software (RRID:SCR_014802)20. RQDA package for R (RRID:SCR_001905) is an open-source alternative. AT coded all GPP interviews, MC coded all OHP interviews while the rest of the team (PL, EB, RM and HC) coded up to six interviews each, ensuring every transcript was coded by at least two researchers. Transcripts were first inductively coded separately and then collectively by the research team. Following several iterative meetings to reach consensus in coding and categorising differences, the research teams decides that the Theory of Planned Behavior model (TPB) which outlines three domains affecting intention to perform a behavior: attitude towards the behavior (or beliefs which influence an individual to perform a behavior), subjective norms (or perceived external pressures as influenced by judgement of others) and perceived behavioral control (or ease or difficulty in performing the behavior as determined by external factors) is congruent with patterns emerging21. Deductive analysis using a framework analysis approach then followed using the TPB to identify patterns and elicit themes22. The team continued to meet to discuss the themes elicited until agreement was reached.
A total of 58 participants completed the survey between April and July 2018: 20 from general practice (eight GPs, nine PCNs and three DEs) and 38 from dental practice (18 Ds, four DHs, six OHTs, five DTs and five DAs). (Table 5)
Table 6 shows the survey results. Most GPPs (75%) had no oral health training in their professional education. The majority rarely or never assessed the mouths of patients (70%) and were not confident in identifying oral disease (60%), discussing oral health with their patients (55%) or managing oral health in patients with diabetes (80%).
In contrast, most OHPs (74%) learnt the relationship between oral health and diabetes in their professional training. The majority were confident in identifying risk factors of type 2 diabetes (66%) and discussing diabetes with their patients (82%) and managing patients with both diabetes and periodontal disease (82%). However, most rarely or never consult GPs (69%). Most GPPs (55%) occasionally referred patients to OHPs while most OHPs rarely or never referred patients to GPPs.
All GPPs agreed that oral health screening was within their role (100%) and most were comfortable to perform simple oral health screening (80%). All thought that oral health screening was feasible in practice (100%) but most thought that it would be welcome by their colleagues (80%). Almost all (95%) welcomed oral health training specifically in diabetes management. All agreed that OHPs should screen patients with periodontitis for diabetes (100%) and almost all thought that better interprofessional collaboration would benefit patients (95%). These results are similar to those from corresponding statements for the OHPs. However, only 65% of GPPs said they would welcome the opportunity for continuing education/training in oral health, compared with 95% of OHPs who said they would welcome continuing education/training in diabetes.
Five GPPs (four PCNs, three DEs) and 10 OHPs (four Ds, two DHs, two OHTs, one DT and one DA) were further interviewed. Interviews lasted 20 minutes on average. One participant declined to be audio-recorded; none took up the offer to review their transcripts or offer additional feedback.
Data saturation was determined to have been reached. Ten themes were grouped under the three TPB domains and an additional overarching domain to describe participants’ current practice.
Domain 1: current practice
Theme 1: separate diabetes and oral health management
Most GPP acknowledged that they did not routinely assess the mouth of their patients with diabetes.
“I don’t usually do it routinely unless there is a particular symptom that they complained of or as I am talking to them I can see that they have got an oral health issue” GP2, female, 51–60 years old, worked 11–20 hours per week, 25–30 years’ experience
OHPs on the other hand often discussed the diabetes and oral health link during initial patient examination.
“…if the patient says they have diabetes or has maternal or paternal history of diabetes, I discuss with my patients the risk he and she can have. If he or she has already been diagnosed with gum disease, I inform them about why it’s so important that (their diabetes) should be controlled.” D2, female, 31–40 years old, worked 31–40 hours per week, 6–10 years experience
Theme 2: poor interprofessional communication or collaboration
Even where medical and dental services were co-located, they were siloed in practice.
“I have dentists on-site here, but we only really get called when someone is feeling faint. There is little two-way communication.” GP5, female, 51–60 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, 25–30 years’ experience
Theme 3: lack of formal referral process
Most participants tended to refer patients to each other informally.
“I would just ask them if they have seen the dentist. Then they would say yes or no. If they haven’t then I would urge them to go (and) make an appointment with the dentist.” GP2, female, 51–60 years old, worked 11–20 hours per week, 25–30 years’ experience
“So I haven’t referred any patients to a GP directly to get it (diabetes) screened, but I have requested them to see a GP to make sure that their diabetes is under control so I can go ahead with my treatment plan.” D2, female, 31–40 years old, worked 31–40 hours per week, 6–10 years’ experience
GPPs noted that they received little feedback from OHPs following ‘referral’.
“When I refer patients to a physiotherapist or a psychologist, or a cardiologist, I get a letter back. I don’t get anything back from our dental services.” GP1, male, >60 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, >30 years’ experience
Formal referrals from OHPs to non-GP health professionals were more common.
“I have never referred to a GP for diabetes. We do have diabetes educators… and I would refer for that.” D1, female, 31–40 years old, worked 31–40 hours per week, 11–15 years’ experience
Domain 2: attitude towards diabetes and oral health management
Theme 4: responsibilities and roles
Many GPPs admitted that oral health was generally overlooked. Many did not think oral health should be their responsibility.
“I don’t think we really know what to do, I think we really leave that to our dental colleagues” GP3, male, 31–40 years old, worked 31–40 hours per week, <5 years’ experience
In contrast, most OHPs thought they should have a role in diabetes screening.
“I think it should be (within our responsibilities). It isn’t though, at the moment.” OHT2, female, <30 years old, worked 31–40 hours per week, <5 years’ experience
However, two dentists expressed apprehension about the ‘unfamiliar territory’ of the Australian Diabetes Risk Assessment (AUSDRISK) tool.
“Another thing is the waist measurement. I don’t know about that. It’s also not really in our place to do so.” D4, female, <30 years old, worked >40 hours per week, <5 years’ experience
GPPs generally agreed that diabetes risk screening is viable in the dental setting.
“…(screening) for diabetes is so simple these days it doesn’t even require a fasting blood test, let alone a glucose tolerance test” GP1, male, >60 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, >30 years’ experience
Most OHPs also felt GPs and nurses could conduct simple oral health screening and prevention. However, some opposed the idea.
“No, I don’t think (non-dental practitioners should look in patients’ mouth). A doctor can, in a general way. But I don’t think they can make a diagnosis about what the problem is...” DH1, male, 31–40 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, <5 years’ experience
Theme 5: further training
Almost all participants felt further training was needed to improve confidence and competence. However, it needs to be conducive for healthcare professionals to attend.
“But it would need to come out of my paid clinical time and have CPD (continuing professional development) points.” D3, female, 31–40 years old, worked 31–40 hours per week, 6–10 years’ experience
Several participants commented on the value of interdisciplinary education.
“Probably doing things like professional development together, you know, once a year or something like that. That would certainly increase my knowledge… It would also begin to build those working relationships” GP5, female, 51–60 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, 25–30 years’ experience
Theme 6: interprofessional collaboration
Overall, participants recognized the benefits of interprofessional collaboration.
“It shows that we’re creating a united front on the importance of it, and we are taking it seriously and working in collaboration to improve the health of the clients.” OHT1, female, 31–40 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, 11–15 years’ experience
Many participants however were hesitant about involving time-poor GPs and dentists.
“Yeah, especially between nurses and dental nurses we can be involved. But leave doctors and dentists if they are so busy…” PCN2, female, 41–50 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, <5 years’ experience
Domain 3: subjective norms
Theme 7: patients’ knowledge and priority of oral health
Participants thought patients were generally unaware of the relationship between diabetes and oral health.
“Clients are not hugely aware (of the) link of oral health and diabetes, and the bi-directional link…” – OHT1, female, 31–40 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, 11–15 years’ experience
Some OHPs said that patients did not appreciate the need to discuss diabetes with them…
“There have been a couple of patients who didn’t want to discuss diabetes.” – DH1, male, 31–40 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, <5 years’ experience
…or prioritized oral health.
“The teeth are the last thing that’s important to them.” – DT1, female, 31–40 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, 16–20 years’ experience
Theme 8: perceived resistance from colleagues to change scope of practice
Many GPPs did not think their fellow colleagues would accept oral health as part of their responsibilities.
“I discussed this with my colleagues just recently, a lot of us believe it’s not really within our scope, and we are not going to venture into an area that we are not that familiar with” DE3, female, 31–40 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, <5 years’ experience
Many participants contended that the culture of siloes was a barrier.
“I think it’s just the way the (health) profession has been for so long. Each person just does their own thing, and there’s no collaboration.” DT1, female, 31–40 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, 16–20 years’ experience
Domain 4: perceived behavioral control
Theme 9: lack of opportunity for training
Participants highlighted a lack of opportunities for further training.
“I have had absolutely no training on dental health apart from growing up in a family where we were trained to brush our teeth” – GP5, female, 51–60 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, 25–30 years’ experience
Many participants perceived that their availability for training was in fact not within their control.
“It depends on my manager… how much she can provide us with the training hours.” PCN2, female, 41–50 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, <5 years’ experience
Theme 10: systemic barriers
Time constraint was a barrier for almost all participants.
“Time is a huge issue. I have mostly half-an-hour appointments, which is a very limited scope for me because I have other things to do as well… To include everything in that half an hour would be very tough and a bit of a problem.” DH1, male, 31–40 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, <5 years’ experience
This excuse, however, was quashed by other participants.
“It doesn’t take that long to do and we can do it. I have been listening to people say that “We don’t have time to do it”, but I think that we can just make time. It’s an important thing to do.” OHT1, female, 31–40 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, 11–15 years’ experience
Some participants thought that the lack of software uniformity and integration of information technology between professions hampered collaboration.
“Dental files are dental files and medical files are medical files. … the only person you’re relying on is what the patient relays back to you, and sometimes they don’t even know what’s being told to them except use this medication, get your dental check-up on this day.” – DT1, female, 31–40 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, 16–20 years’ experience
High dental costs and long public dental waiting list were the most common reasons that GPs, PCNs and DEs gave for their reluctance to refer patients to OHPs.
“Another barrier is cost… (Patients) are so used to bulk-billing and they thought that if medical bulk bills, why not dental as well.” PCN2, female, 41–50 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, <5 years’ experience
“…even the minor delay of even a week or two is sufficient for the patient to scurry away and say I’ll do it another time, and then the opportunity is lost.” GP1, male, >60 years old, worked 21–30 hours per week, >30 years’ experience
Our research aims align with the National Oral Health Plan’s recommendations for greater collaboration of OHPs with the broader health workforce23. Our findings contribute to a growing evidence base for interprofessional collaboration between medical and oral health professionals and will help support the RACGP guidelines on diabetes management and IDF guidelines on interprofessional collaboration9,10. This corresponds with the recommendations from a UK study to develop initiatives and policies to promote and embed oral health management as part of diabetes care24.
The TPB model provided the framework to explain the key factors influencing healthcare professionals’ consideration of interprofessional care of diabetes and periodontitis21. Several attitudinal beliefs and societal normative influences strongly impact their collaborative behavioral patterns. Our results are similar to those from studies that have found many non-oral healthcare professionals do not manage the oral health of patients with diabetes25,26.
Like our study, a German study also reported a lack of collaboration from OHPs which was likely a result of the informal nature of ‘verbal referrals’ usually directed at OHPs27. Other research shows that OHPs supported diabetes screening becoming part of oral health professionals’ standard care but the convoluted referral system dissuaded them from providing formal referrals8. It is important that a simple and structured referral system, like the one between medical specialists, be developed between medical/nursing practitioners and OHPs to promote effective interprofessional collaboration.
Currently, Australian medical and dental practices use completely different information systems that are not integrated. This compounds service fragmentation and suboptimal clinical outcomes. Appropriate policies are required to incorporate information sharing in health systems to support interprofessional collaborative relationships28.
It was not surprising that time constraint was a barrier particularly for GPs and dentists. They may be more suited to be involved after the initial primary prevention strategies. The barrier of the healthcare profession ‘silo’ culture is well-known and is also reflected in Marshall and Spencer’s paper which cites a “separateness” between Australian medical and dental practices29. However, improved management of periodontitis would potentially improve blood glucose control, which would in turn further improve periodontal health resulting in longer-term fewer visits to GP and dental clinics and ultimately save time and resources.
Further training in diabetes and oral health management would increase healthcare professionals’ knowledge and confidence30. Ward et al. found that nurses who were confident with their oral health education were more likely to screen patients with diabetes for periodontitis25. The importance of interdisciplinary training is consistent with Lamster and Eaves’ push for greater interprofessional collaboration and emphasis on respecting all health disciplines, increasing the understanding of each profession’s role, providing more effective communication and maximizing safety, efficiency and effectiveness11. Currently there are minimal interprofessional training opportunities. Development of future training should have an interprofessional focus, be as conducive as possible and be accredited for CPD.
Our mixed-methods approach allowed an in-depth exploration of participants’ views. Although the sample size was small, the wide range of healthcare professionals provided broad perspectives. Unequal representation from different professional groups may impede the generalizability of the findings even though data saturation was reached. Our focus on CHSs with co-located general practice and dental services may have limited the extrapolation of our findings to other settings.
Primary healthcare professionals generally recognized the importance and have strong intentions to engage in interprofessional diabetes and oral health management. Accredited interprofessional training should bridge the divide between medicine and dentistry. Formal referral processes are necessary to improve interprofessional feedback and communication. Health policies and advocacies need to target dental costs and public dental waiting lists to motivate referrals. An effective and feasible interprofessional collaborative diabetes and oral health care model would contribute to improved patient outcomes. Future studies should include the views of patients, policy makers and other stakeholders.
Deidentified data of this research will only be provided on request. Reviewers or other researchers intending to reproduce the study may make this request by emailing the corresponding author. This conditional withholding of data is necessary to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the participants who were sourced from a small number of community health services and the final sample size was small.
Figshare: COREQ checklist for ‘Interprofessional diabetes and oral health management: what do primary healthcare professionals think?’ https://doi.org/10.26188/14454372.
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (CC-BY-ND 4.0).
Phyllis Lau (PL), Hanny Calache (HC) and Rachel Martin (RM) contributed to the conceptualisation and design of the study, funding acquisition, recruitment of participants, collection of the raw data and data analysis. Evelyn Boyce (EB) managed the project administration and assisted with recruitment of participants, data collection and analysis. Anthony Tran (AT) and Matthew Chen (MC) were Honours research students at the time and, under the supervision of PL and HC, conducted the surveys and interviews, and analysed the data as part of the research team. All authors contributed to the drafting, revisions and final approval of the version to be published.
The authors acknowledged the contributions of Prof Mark Gussy, Assoc Prof John Furler and our advisory group who guided the progress of the research, the staff at the four community health services who assisted with recruitment of participants and the participants who contributed their valuable time and views in the surveys and interviews.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Oral Health Management Innovation Research: Teledentistry and Integrated Care Management of Periodontitis Patients
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Relationship of Oral Health to Overall Health
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 1 04 May 21 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (1)