J Dent Educ. 68(7_suppl): 45-46 2004
© 2004 American Dental Education Association
Working Together for Change |
Practice and Community: A Working Group Report
Hazel Harper, D.D.S., M.P.H.;
Deborah Studen-Pavlovich, D.M.D.
The participants in this working group included, in addition to the authors, Dr. Michele Aerden, Federation Dentaire International and Vice President, Chambres Syndicales Dentaires; Dr. Frida Decaluwe, Flemish Dental Association, Brussels, Belgium; Mr. Robert Johns, Executive Director, National Dental Association, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Joy Jordan, President-Elect, National Dental Association, Cleveland, Ohio; and Ms. Cynthia Worsley, National Dental Association, Washington, D.C. The working group divided its topic of "Practice and Community" into three areas: 1) issues, 2) strategies, and 3) opportunities.
 |
Issues
|
|---|
Some of the pertinent issues were the following: 1) access to oral health care and its barriers including financial, cultural, and fear of dentistry (For example, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, CHIP, was developed to provide medical and dental care to children who were not covered by government-sponsored or private insurance plans. The states were authorized to implement the program. However, at this time, some programs have not used the funding or used it inappropriately. Now, these programs run the risk of losing the allocated monies); 2) budget; 3) policy and regulations; 4) the dental workforce: cultural competency, availability of dentists, age and gender, and willingness to participate as a volunteer; 5) ethical considerations: accountability, quality assurance, freedom of choice for a dental provider; 6) reward and satisfaction structure: financial remuneration, voluntary faculty appointment to the dental school, public recognition; and 7) assessment: data collection, standardization, calibration, and evaluation.
|
Strategies
|
|---|
When developing strategies to address the issues relating to "Practice and Community," it was agreed that identification of the stakeholders is very important during the initial planning stages. At the same time, engaging partners such as government agencies, dental societies, schools, corporations, the community at large, families, and media support may be critical to the success or failure of the project.
A financial plan with a budget and the amount of funding would be the next item to be developed by the group followed by the planning of the program (schedules, time frame, staff, best practices). After that, the implementation of the project can occur.
In order to adequately assess the value of the program, internal and external evaluations should be performed. Program evaluations incorporating feedback should be done following the implementation to ensure that continual improvements can be made.
Following the evaluation phase, dissemination of program information to stakeholders and partners should occur. Comparison of the successes and shortcomings of the program with other similar programs locally, regionally, nationally, and globally should be done at this time. Strategic planning should contribute to the success of the program.
|
Opportunities
|
|---|
Opportunities that may exist include: 1) oral health with the promotion of the Surgeon General’s Report and Healthy People 2010 Oral Health objectives being a prominent and pertinent health issue; 2) established network of partners including foundations and corporations; 3) efficient technology transfer of information; 4) exchange of ideas, programs, and goals at conferences and symposia; and 5) the dental schools as a component of the academic health center to deliver oral health messages as well as promoting the profession and recruiting future dental health professionals. Dental schools are traditionally providers of care for the underserved and contribute to the well-being of the community by being accessible to these patients for oral health services.
|
A Belgian Perspective
|
|---|
Drs. Aerden and Decaluwe described a new Belgian initiative that involves the "Practice and Community" concept. The participants are six-to-twelve-year-old schoolchildren who have not received adequate and regular oral health care. Eligibility issues were of concern in the development of this project. For instance, would certain schools and/ or towns have a stigma because so many participants were from that school or town? Motivation by the school and the parents is present. These children will be given a one-year time limit according to the program’s guidelines to receive oral health care. A considerable amount of media support through television, radio, and newspapers has been used to promote the project. The government-funded insurance companies will notify the parents of the children if no participation has occurred within two to three months of the starting date. This program will involve 15,000 schoolchildren of Belgium’s 10.5 million inhabitants. Implementation date is set for the final quarter of 2003.
Before this program could be initiated in Belgium, elections were held to decide if the program would be run. Additionally, a cultural barrier was present because some Belgian citizens did not believe that a real need existed for this dental program. The description by the Belgian dental leaders gave the participants insight into their different beliefs and opinions regarding the program as well as the process needed for implementation.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
Dr. Harper is Past President, National Dental Association, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Studen-Pavlovich is Professor and Chair of the Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Pittsburgh, School of Dental Medicine. Direct correspondence to Dr. Studen-Pavlovich at Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Pittsburgh, School of Dental Medicine, 3501 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261-1933; 412-648-8183 phone; 412-648-8435 fax; das12{at}pitt.edu.
Top
Issues
Strategies
