Resumo
Aim: To determine recall ability of patients of post-operative instructions and to evaluate differences in compliance to verbal instructions and combined verbal and written instructions.
Method: Eight hundred and fifteen consecutive adult patients who consented to participate in the study were recruited from two units (Oral and maxillofacial surgery (407) and Periodontology (408) of the dental centre, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria over a period of three years. Institutional ethical approval was obtained. The patients were divided into two groups each by random sampling; verbal (‘’V’’) only and both verbal and written (‘’V and W’’) post-extraction and post- professional oral prophylaxis instructions. Questionnaires (self and interviewer administered) were used to evaluate patients’ demography, postoperative clinical assessment and assessment of recall abilities. Data was analyzed using SPSS Version 20.0 and descriptive statistics was used to summarize the variables. Independent sample student t-test and Chi square were used to test association involving descriptive data and level of significance was set at P<0.05.
Result: Recall ability of ten elements of the post-extraction instructions were statistically significant between the ‘’V and W’’ group and the ‘’V’’ group ( p values were 0.001, 0.014 and 0.001) while recall ability of the post-oral prophylaxis instruction of two elements between the two groups were not statistically significant (p values were 0.807 and 0.992) while one was statistically significant ( p value was 0.036), p value was set at p< 0.05.
Conclusion: The ‘’V’’ and ‘’W’’ group was found to be more effective because it gave more significant differences in the recall abilities between the two groups especially in the post-extraction instructions in this study.
Keywords: Verbal, written, instructions, dental procedures.
Résumé
But: Déterminer la capacité de rappel des patients des instructions postopératoires et évaluer les différences de conformité aux instructions verbales et aux instructions combinées verbales etécrites.
Méthode: Huit cent quinze patients adultes consécutifs ayant accepté de participer à l’étude ont été recrutés dans deux unités (chirurgie buccale et maxillo-faciale (407) et parodontologie (408))
du centre dentaire de l’ University College Hospital à Ibadan, au Nigéria, pendant une période donnée. de trois ans. L’approbation éthique institutionnelle a été obtenue. Les patients ont été divisés en deuxgroupes chacun par échantillonnage aléatoire; instructions verbales (‘’ V ‘’) et verbales et écrites (‘’ V & W ‘’) post-extraction et post-professionnelles de prophylaxie orale. Des questionnaires (auto-administrés et interrogés) ont été utilisés pour évaluer la démographie des patients, l’évaluation clinique postopératoire et l’évaluation des capacités de rappel. Les données ont été analysées à l’aide de SPSS version 20.0 et des statistiques descriptives ont été utilisées pour résumer les variables. Un test t d’élève et un chi carré indépendants ont été utilisés pour tester l’association impliquant des données descriptives et le niveau de signification a été fixé à p <0,05.
Résultat: La capacité de rappel de dix éléments des instructions post-extraction était statistiquement significative entre le groupe «V & W» et le groupe «V» (les valeurs p étaient de 0,001, 0,014 et 0,001), tandis que la capacité de rappel des Les instructions de prophylaxie de deux éléments entre les deux groupes n’étaient pas statistiquement significatives (les valeurs p étaient de 0,807 et 0,992), tandis que l’un était statistiquement significatif (la valeur p était de 0,036), la valeur p était fixée à p <0,05.
Conclusion: le groupe ‘’ V ‘’ et ‘’ W ‘’ s’est avéré plus efficace car il donnait des différences plus significatives dans les capacités de rappel entre les deux groupes, en particulier dans les instructions postextraction de cette étude.
Mots - clés: Verbale, écrite, instructions, procédures dentaires
Correspondence: Dr. Elizabeth B. Dosumu, Department of Periodontology and Community Dentistry, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Email:edosumu18jj@mail.com
Referências
Correa R, Meneze RB, Wong J, et al. Compliance with post operative instructions: A telephone survey of 750 day surgery patients. Anesthesia 2001; 56 (5): 481-484
Alvira- Gonzalez and Gary- Escoda C. Compliance of post operative instructions following surgical extraction of impacted third molars; A randomized clinical trial. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015; 20 (2): e 224- 230
Vallebrand WP, Vallebrand AH and Heft M. The effects of post operative preparatory information on the clinical course following third molar extraction. J oral Maxillofac Surg. 1994; 52: 1165-1170.
Ferrus –Torres E, Valmaseda –Castellon E, Berini- Aytes L and Gary-Escoda C. Informed consent in Oral Surgery; the value of written information. J oral maxillofac surgery 2011; 69: 54-58
Assael LA. Can you hear me now? Listening to our patients and ourselves. J Oral Maxillofac surg. 2005; 63: 425-426
Van Wijk, Buchanan H, Coulson N and Hoogstratan J. Preparatory information for third molar extraction. Does preference fo information and behavioural involvement matter? Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 79; 94-99
Kessel RP. Patients memory of medical information JR Soc Med. 2003; 96: 210-222
Atchison KA, Black EE, leathers R, et al. A qualitative report of patients problems and post operative instructions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005; 63: 449-456
Kim Y, Kim S and Myoung H. Independent predictors of satisfaction in impacted third molar surgery patients. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2010; 38: 274-286
Lago- Mendez L, Diniz –Freitas M, Senra-Rivera C, et al. Post operative recovery after removal of a third molar: Role of trait and dental anxiety. Oral Surg Oral med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol endod. 2009; 108: 855-860
Van Wijk A, de Jongh H and Lindeboom JA. Anxiety Sensitivity as a predictor of anxiety and pain related to third molar removal. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 68: 2723-2729
Lockhart PB, Brennan MT and Sasser HC. Poor oral hygiene as a risk factor for infective endocarditis. JADA 2010; 140 (10): 1238-1244.
Li X, Kolltveit KM and Olsen I. Systemic Disaeses caused by Oral Infections. Clin Microbiol Rev 2000; 13(4): 547-558.
Okabe K, Nakagawa K and Yamamoto E. Factors affecting the occurrence of bacteremia associated with tooth extraction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995; 24: 239-242.
Maharaj B, Coovadia Y and Vayej AC. An investigation of the frequency of bacteremia following dental extraction, tooth brushing and chewing. Cardiovasc J Afr 2012; 23(6): 340-344.
Bartova J, Sommerova P, Lyuya-Mi Y, et al. Periodontitis as a Risk Factor of Atherosclerosis. J Immunol Res. 2014 Article ID 636893, 9 pages.
Blinder D, Rotenberg L, Peleg M and Tarcher S. Patient compliance to instructions after oral surgical procedure. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2001; 30; 216-219
Orero- Gonzalez A, Ripoll-Lozano MA and Gonzalez –Nunez J. Analysis of automedication with antibiotics in Spain. Enferm Infec microbial Clin. 1998; 328-333
Culbertson VL, Arthur TG, Rhodes PJ and Rhodes RS. Consumer preferences for verbal and written medication information. Drug Intel Clin Pharm 1988; 22: 390-396
Adebayo E T and Dairo M. Patients’ Compliance wi th Instructions after Minor Oral Surgery in Nigeria. J Comm Med and Primary Health Care. 2005; 17(1): 38-44.
Houts P, Bachrach R, Witmer JT, et al. Using pictographs to enhance recall of spoken medical instructions. Patient Educ Couns 1998; 35: 83-88.
Alexander R E. Patient understanding of post surgical instruction forms . Oral Surg, Oral Pathol, Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 87: 153-158.
Akpata O, Omoregie OF and Owotade F. Alveolar Osteitis; Patients’ compliance to post- extraction following extraction of molar teeth. Niger Med J. 2013; 54(5): 335-338