From the Editor
Dear Readers,
This month, Inside Dentistry explores the escalating debate over the role of midlevel providers in dentistry. With issues weighing heavy on the minds of people both for and against the creation of another “non-dentist” oral health professional, we look to address the concerns that will come to bear on our industry’s ability to improve access to care among underserved populations, as well as impact the quality of that care and workforce efficiency.
Communication. Access to care is the key issue understood by everyone. Collaboration and communication are taking place and should continue within the profession as the basis for solving the problem of how to increase access to quality oral care for those who need it. It is also a requirement in order to determine the best way to utilize the talents, education, and skills of existing members of the oral healthcare team, or conclude that a new, competently trained individual should be integrated to perform certain and specific tasks in order to enhance the delivery of oral care to the public.
A Lack of Universal Definitions. I have mentioned previously in my editorials—and the experts interviewed in this month’s feature reiterate the point—that the decisions about which “non-dentist” dental team members can do what and when fall under the purview of the states. Not all states allow dental hygienists or dental assistants to perform the same expanded functions. As a result, uniting our country’s dental profession in a conversation about “non-dentist” midlevel providers continues to be wrought with tension and confusion, since the roles and responsibilities of this team member are not, and perhaps cannot be, universally defined.
Recognizing the Common Objective. The person in the access to care and dental midlevel provider discussions who demands the most respect and attention is the patient. However, our country is vast, and the demographics of our nation’s patient population vary by geography. Therefore, what’s needed in one area of the country to address oral care needs may be vastly different from what’s required elsewhere. Compounding the problem, unfortunately, is the limited number of dentists and other professionals in key areas that could provide supervision to “non-dentist” midlevel providers, if that is determined to be necessary. Regardless, what specific patients need in specific areas must dictate our proposed solutions.
We hope you enjoy this issue and find that it stimulates your own thoughts about inter-professional collaborations, improving workforce efficiency, and enhancing access to quality oral care for those who need it. As I emphasize each month, your thoughts, opinions, and reactions continue to motive us to improve our clinical content and coverage of topics affecting our profession. Please send us your feedback to letters@insidedentistry.net. Thank you for reading and for your continued support.
About the Author
Gerard Kugel, DMD, MS, PhD
Associate Dean for Research
Tufts University School of Dental Medicine
Boston, MA
gkugel@aegiscomm.com
