Inter-rater reliability of the Oral Assessment Guide for oral cancer patients between nurses and dental hygienists: the difficulties in objectively assessing oral health
- 227 Downloads
Perioperative oral care is effective for the prevention and reduction of complications following surgery. However, oral cancer patients’ oral health is often poor. During hospitalization, oral cancer patients frequently receive oral care from ward nurses as well as professional oral care from dental hygienists. Maintenance of good oral hygiene in these patients ideally requires cooperation between nurses and dental hygienists. Consequently, communication tools used to share information about the status of patients’ oral health are needed. One such tool is the Oral Assessment Guide (OAG). However, the inter-rater reliability of the OAG has not been consistently reported; therefore, we examined this between nurses and dental hygienists.
Participants comprised 76 patients hospitalized for oral cancer treatment. After surgery, a nurse and a dental hygienist performed oral assessments using the OAG. Comparative statistical analyses were conducted to examine differences and consistencies in the scores of nurses and dental hygienists.
Although almost all patients’ oral health status was poor, none were given the worst score in the mucous membrane or gingiva categories. Further, the tongue, saliva, mucous membrane, gingiva, and teeth/denture categories had low κ coefficients, indicating poor nurse–dental hygienist inter-rater reliability. In contrast, the κ coefficients and agreement rates for voice and swallowing were high. Dental hygienists’ scores were significantly higher for the tongue, gingiva, and teeth/denture categories than were nurses’ scores.
This study showed low nurse–dental hygienist inter-rater reliability for the OAG and highlighted the difficulties in objectively assessing patients’ symptoms and oral health conditions. Therefore, rather than only relying on an objective assessment of symptoms by a clinician, assessments should also include patients’ subjective reporting of symptoms. OAG will likely be used until a new assessment tool is developed. Objective assessment training and/or user manual development may be required to improve the reliability of OAG. The present training of one lesson a year is insufficient, and efforts should be made to improve this to get more reliable outcomes.
KeywordsNurses Dental hygienists Oral assessment guide Oral cancer Inter-rater reliability
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Clinical Research at Tokai University School of Medicine (16R-163). This clinical research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki as well as the Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Research by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient after an explanation of the study protocol. To protect personal information, the obtained data was managed by “anonymity with linking capability.”
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 3.McGuire DB, Fulton JS, Park J, Brown CG, Correa ME, Eilers J, Elad S, Gibson F, Oberle-Edwards LK, Bowen J, Lalla RV (2013) Systematic review of basic oral care for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 21:3165–3177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1942-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Yoneyama T, Yoshida M, Ohrui T, Mukaiyama H, Okamoto H, Hoshiba K, Ihara S, Yanagisawa S, Ariumi S, Morita T, Mizuno Y, Ohsawa T, Akagawa Y, Hashimoto K, Sasaki H (1996) Oral hygiene reduces respiratory infections in elderly bed-bound nursing home patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 22:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50106.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Pfister DG, Spencer S, Brizel DM, Burtness B, Busse PM, Caudell JJ, Cmelak AJ, Colevas AD, Dunphy F, Eisele DW, Foote RL, Gilbert J, Gillison ML, Haddad RI, Haughey BH, Hicks WL Jr, Hitchcock YJ, Jimeno A, Kies MS, Lydiatt WM, Maghami E, McCaffrey T, Mell LK, Mittal BB, Pinto HA, Ridge JA, Rodriguez CP, Samant S, Shah JP, Weber RS, Wolf GT, Worden F, Yom SS, McMillian N, Hughes M (2015) Head and neck cancers, version 1.2015. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 13:847–855. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2015.0102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Shigeishi H, Ohta K, Fujimoto S, Nakagawa T, Mizuta K, Ono S, Shimasue H, Ninomiya Y, Higashikawa K, Tada M, Ishida F, Okui G, Okumura T, Fukui A, Kubozono K, Yamamoto K, Ishida Y, Seino S, Hashikata M, Sasaki K, Naruse T, Rahman MZ, Uetsuki R, Nimiya A, Takamoto M, Dainobu K, Tokikazu T, Nishi H, Sugiyama M, Takechi M (2016) Preoperative oral health care reduces postoperative inflammation and complications in oral cancer patients. Exp Ther Med 12:1922–1928. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2016.3532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Sakamoto H, Sasaki J, Nord CE (1999) Association between bacterial colonization on the tumor, bacterial translocation to the cervical lymph nodes and subsequent postoperative infection in patients with oral cancer. Clin Microbiol Infect 5:612–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.1999.tb00417.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Eilers J, Berger AM, Peterson MC (1988) Development, testing, and application of the oral assessment guide. Oncol Nurs Forum 15:325–330Google Scholar
- 13.Andersson P, Hallberg IR, Renvert S (2002) Inter-rater reliability of an oral assessment guide for elderly patients residing in a rehabilitation ward. Spec Care Dentist 22:181–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-4505.2002.tb00268.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2006) Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T, Barz A, Culkin A, Kris MG, Scher HI, Schrag D (2006) Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol 7:903–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(06)70910-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar