30 / 48
30
|
2017
|
Issue 2
S
upporting
Y
our
P
ractice
Manitoba, with some dentists practising in more than
one location. Analysis of the focus group transcripts
revealed common themes, which are presented in this
article.
Reasons for Participation (or Not)
Most focus group members (24/30) participated in the
FFV program. Both participants and non-participants
were extremely supportive of the program.
The most common reason for participating in the
FFV program was because it promoted early dental visits.
Dentists said the program helped them educate parents
about the appropriate age for a first visit and how to care
for their child’s teeth. The first visit also accustomed
the child to the dental office in a non-threatening
situation. Several dentists referred to the importance of
establishing a “dental home.”
“
I participate because I find it’s a good idea to get
the kids in early so that we can teach the parents
about prevention.
”
Although not a universal view, many agreed that it only
took a few minutes to perform an examination.
Of the 6 dentists not formally registered in the program,
several said that they offer free visits. Several mentioned
filling out FFV tracking forms as an issue: “As silly as
it sounds, the reason that we don’t do the program
is because we don’t want to have to track the forms,
because we already offer those visits for free.”
One dentist said that many pediatric dental practices
include a majority of patients whose bills are covered
by a third party, including First Nations patients,
patients on social assistance and those with insurance.
Foregoing payment in these cases could create financial
problems for the practice without providing any benefit
for patients. He wanted to be able to publicize the
FFV to private clients, but continue to charge
government and insurance companies for patients with
coverage. Other dentists recognized this issue as
a legitimate concern.
Uptake and Follow Up
Many focus group participants believed that public
demand for the FFV is low. Three said that they had not
yet had any preschool patients; nearly half (13) said they
saw 5 or fewer in an average week.
Several dentists thought that the program might have
attracted a few new patients to their office and brought
in some children earlier than otherwise. They also cited
the program for helping them to promote early visits.
With respect to follow-up visits, dentists said that parents
with insurance returned, but those without insurance
often did not come back.
Access to Care
Both general and pediatric dentists said that most
(75–90%) of their patients had some form of coverage:
private or government-based insurance. However,
patients without coverage present challenges. Dentists
described how parents of these patients come in for the
first visit because it is free, learn of extensive treatment
needs and then do not return because they cannot
afford the treatment. The overall experience is frustrating
to dentists as well as to the parents.
There was overall agreement that the program did not
improve access to care for patients in disadvantaged
circumstances.
“
I don’t think it increases access to care…what we’re
doing to the kids is we’re giving them a free visit
with nothing beyond that.”
Public Awareness
It was clear that participants viewed the goals of the
program as increasing public awareness, educating
parents to prevent early childhood caries and allowing
early diagnoses to prevent major problems.
“
More prevention, tome it’s all about prevention, to put
moremoney in prevention because we have under 3s
that come withmouths already destroyed, extractions,
crowns. So why don’t we start from the beginning
when parents are pregnant — teach themwhat to do
to prevent all these.”
It was clear that participants viewed the goals of the program as increasing
public awareness, educating parents to prevent early childhood caries and
allowing early diagnoses to prevent major problems.