The National Health Service (Personal Dental Services Agreements) Regulations 2005

Monitoring outcomes

7.—(1) The agreement shall require the contractor to monitor, in accordance with this paragraph, the outcome of the orthodontic treatment it provides.

(2) The contractor shall, in respect of orthodontic courses of treatment it provides in which orthodontic treatment is provided following the case assessment, monitor the outcome of that orthodontic treatment in accordance with sub-paragraph (3).

(3) The contractor shall monitor the outcome of orthodontic treatment in accordance with “Methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards”(1) in respect of—

(a) where the total number of cases is 20 or fewer, all the cases of orthodontic courses of treatment it provides; or

(b) where the total number of orthodontic courses of treatment provided is greater than 20—

(i) 20 of the cases; and

(ii) in addition, 10 per cent of the number of cases over 20,

of orthodontic courses of treatment it provides.

(4) The agreement shall specify the period of time which is relevant for calculating the number of orthodontic courses of treatment that need to be monitored in accordance with this paragraph.

(5) As part of its monitoring of the outcome of orthodontic treatment under paragraph (2), the contractor shall, in respect of the patients whose courses of treatment are monitored calculate a peer assessment rating of the patient’s study casts—

(a) taken at or after the case assessment but prior to the commencement of orthodontic treatment; and

(b) taken at the completion of the orthodontic course of treatment,

using either Clinical Outcome Monitoring Program software(2) or by applying the methodology set out in “An introduction to Occlusal Indices”(3).

(6) In sub-paragraph (5), “peer assessment rating” means an index of treatment standards in which individual scores for the components of alignment and occlusion are summed to calculate an overall score comparing pre- and post- treatment(4).

(1)

European Journal of Orthodontics 14, p125-139, 1992 Richmond S, Shaw W.C, Anderson M and Roberts C.T. The article is available at www.dh.gov.uk.

(2)

Clinical Outcome Monitoring Program – Version 3.1 for Windows 98, XP and 2000. See also Weerakone S and Dhopatkar “A: Clinical Outcome Monitoring Program (COMP): a new application for use in orthodontic audits and research”, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics 2003;123: 503-511.

(3)

Richmond, O'Brien, Buchanan and Burden, 1992, Victoria, University of Manchester, ISBN 1-898922-00-4.

(4)

A description of this methodology can be found in the European Journal or Orthodontics 14, p180-187, 1992, Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT and Andrews M: “Methods to determine the outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards”.