Your Fear of the Dentist

Dental phobia is estimated to affect about 30% of all adults, with many unable to entertain the idea of dental work being done under anesthetic.

As with most forms of phobic behaviour, the origins of dental fear tend to be found in childhood or adolescence - a traumatic dental experience, possibly with a critical or inconsiderate dentist, maybe backed up by unfavourable experiences related to friends or family members. Such experience can influence adult behaviour despite any amount of education and media coverage to the contrary.

The consequences of dental phobia can be traumatic in themselves. Over many years, a condition which is treatable can turn into one which is not. Phobic patients are highly likely to suffer from dental disease and end up slowly losing their teeth or in emergency services.

Dental phobics can get special help by specialists in psychotherapy services. There is a ‘talking’ cure, a very effective and friendly form of treatment, which often produces dramatic results. The guiding principle behind treatment is a graduated controlled exposure of patients to the feared stimulus.

The patients first have a session, in a room near the surgery, with a psychotherapist who will work with them to help them leave their fear in the past. They will then have a consultation with the dentist. Psychotherapy is more effective if the patients go immediately into the surgery, even if only for a consultation, rather than waiting several weeks.

A demystification of the dentist and his equipment is intended. Not all dentists cause pain. Besides, if one goes to the dentist regularly and damage to the teeth is treated immediately, there is little chance for the patient to feel any pain, whereas when fear of the dentist keeps you away from the surgery and your teeth develop large cavities, the intervention will always be painful.

The article has been submitted Anonymously to MedsAvailable

Safety fear hospitals not deterring patients

Safety fears at a number of hospitals in the UK appear to be having no effect on patient numbers a recent report monitoring attendance records has uncovered recently.

The study has come about after a recent report developed by the Healthcare Commission that widely criticised a number of health concerns across a number of hospitals operated by the NHS.  The report was widely covered gaining a significant amount of national news coverage.  This however, appears to have had little to no effect on patient numbers at the three hospitals studied by the Imperial College London.

Both university hospitals, Leicester Trust and Mid-Staffordshire Foundation Trust saw no difference in the number of patients received after the initial report was released.  The only one to see a fall was Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells which saw a 12% drop over a 3 month period and a 14% drop over six months before rising to normal levels following the report.

The lead author of the report Anthony Laverty was surprised by the information he however thinks that relying on a reaction from releasing such information to the public in the hope that it will spark a change is a risky practice.  He believes that for any real changes to be made, it will come from internal pressures worried about reputational damage rather than those patients concerned with receiving the best care possible.

It is understood that these types of studies are generally aimed at those responsible for the standards of quality at hospitals, such as the managers and clinicians in an attempt to try and impact the way the hospitals operate.  Patient choice should however always be considered but as the study points out, it does not seem to be a key force in improving the quality of care.

The research pointed out that geographical location of a hospital and recommendations from friends and family play a large role in when a patient is considering where to meet their healthcare needs.  The quality of service is no doubt important however it takes a back seat to these more pressing concerns.  The BMJ recently reported around issues of patient choice and competition and commented that this is still an area that needs more investigation before any true deductions can be made.