Antimicrobial resistance: audit tool limitations

Send your letters to the Editor, _British Dental Journal_, 64 Wimpole Street, London, W1G 8YS. [email protected]. Priority will be given to letters less than 500 words long. Authors must sign the

letter, which may be edited for reasons of space. Sir, I read with interest a recent letter in the _BDJ_ entitled 'Antimicrobial prescribing: the work continues ...' (_BDJ_ 2018;

225: 3–4, published 13 July 2018). I fully concur with the authors in terms of the potential benefits of audit as a tool to promote educational and behavioural change and in this case with

regard to antimicrobial prescribing.1,2 I also agree that undertaking these audits in a foundation training environment could provide benefits to all who are involved, including the

foundation dentists, foundation trainers and any other clinicians who participate in such a practice wide audit. In addition, naturally, patients can benefit through receiving an

antimicrobial only when it is appropriate. Reducing the inappropriate prescription of antibiotics in dental practice will also very likely help to combat the development of antimicrobial

resistance in microorganisms within the community. At the present time, I am carrying out an analysis of a large scale antimicrobial audit undertaken in the East of England which has

required practitioners to use the online dental audit tool described within the above letter, which is noted as being accessible from the British Dental Association, FGDP (UK) and Public

Health England websites.3 However, during the initial analysis it has become apparent that there are several significant flaws within the audit tool which lead to incorrect results being

displayed on the report form provided by the tool. In particular the report section of the tool incorrectly displays the auditor's results in a pie chart format under the proportions of

appropriate, inappropriate and potentially appropriate prescribing. I would therefore at the present time advise caution in the use of the tool and in particular in the interpretation of

the results section until it is clear that these errors within the tool have been fully rectified. REFERENCES * Cannell P J . A PCT-wide collaborative clinical audit selecting recall

intervals for patients according to risk. _Br Dent J_ 2011; 210: E8. Article  Google Scholar  * Chate R A C, White S, Hale L R O, Howat A P, Bottomley J, Barnet-Lamb J, Lindsay J, Davies T I

and Heath J M . The impact of clinical audit on antibiotic prescribing in general dental practice. _Br Dent J_ 2006; 201: 635–641. Article  Google Scholar  * GOV.UK Dental antimicrobial

Stewardship Toolkit. Available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/dental-antimicrobial-stewardship-toolkit (accessed 24 July 2018). Download references AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND

AFFILIATIONS * by email, P. Cannell Authors * P. Cannell View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Cannell, P. Antimicrobial resistance: Audit tool limitations. _Br Dent J_ 225, 463 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.818 Download citation *

Published: 28 September 2018 * Issue Date: 28 September 2018 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.818 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read

this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative