- Email: [email protected]
Survey of dentist opinion, 1964 IV. Reasons for not employing auxiliary personnel
Survey of dentist opinion, 1964 IV. Reasons for not employing auxiliary personnel
BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND STATISTICS
In the 1964 survey, one of the items on the questionnaire was “About one-fifth of all dentists work without auxiliary per sonnel. What do you think is the main reason?” The reason cited most often by the re spondents was “Their practices are not busy enough to warrant employment of auxiliary personnel.” This reason was more prominent among dentists who were graduated before 1920 than among those who were graduated after 1920. Another reason that was emphasized more by the older dentists was “They prefer to work alone.” A reason given greater stress by the younger dentists was “They are not trained to use auxiliary personnel.” “They are unaware of the economic advantages” and “They do not wish to increase their overhead” were not among the listed al ternatives on the questionnaire but were written in by some of the respondents. Because these were write-ins, they may be more significant than the percentages in dicate (Table 22).
Table 23 shows the correlation between the respondents’ opinion of why dentists work without auxiliary personnel and the type of personnel employed by the re spondents. The most interesting aspect of Table 23 revolves around the answer that “They are not trained to use auxiliary personnel.” The largest percentage of re spondents who cited this reason were those who employed both dental hygienists and dental assistants, whereas the smallest percentage was the respondents who did not employ any auxiliary per sonnel. Each respondent was asked to indicate the reason why he did not employ more auxiliary personnel. The largest percent age of all the respondents said, “There is not sufficient demand for dental care to keep additional personnel busy.” This re sponse came from a larger proportion of dentists who were graduated in the 1960’s than in preceding years. “Patients prefer to have the dentist do as much of the work as possible” and “A better serv
REPORTS O F C O U N C IL S A N D BU R EA U S • 991
Table 2 2 • R esponses t o th e q u e s tio n : “ A b o u t o n e -fifth o f a ll d e n tis ts w o r k w ith o u t a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l. W h a t d o y o u th in k is th e m ain r e a s o n ? " a c c o r d in g t o y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n
Reasons T h e ir p ra c tic e s a re n o t busy e n o u g h t o w a r r a n t e m p lo y m ent o f a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l T h e y p r e fe r t o w o r k a lo n e T h e y b e lie v e th a t p a tie n ts re se n t a u x ilia r y p e rs o n n e l in d e n ta l o ffic e s T h e y a r e n o t tra in e d t o use a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l T h e y a r e u n a w a re o f th e e c o n o m ic a d v a n ta g e s T h e y d o n o t w ish t o In c re a s e th e ir o v e rh e a d M is c e lla n e o u s
A ll r e
19001919
19 2 0 1929
19301939
19401949
19501959
19601964
s p o n d e n ts
54.3 41.6
45.2 46.7
46.9 38.4
46.1 34.8
46.4 28.7
43.5 23.9
46.0 32.7
5.0
3.2
2.2
2.4
1.3
0.1
1.8
23.3
26.9
30.7
32.5
34.7
37.9
32.7
0.5
2.8
2.4
4.1
4.5
2.8
3.6
5.0 6.8
5.8 4.3
5.4 6.0
5.3 6.0
7.2 4.3
6.2 3.3
6.2 4.8
ice can be rendered when the dentist pays close attention to office details” were rea sons given by greater proportions of older dentists than younger dentists. “It is not worth increased cost” and “Larger staff is inefficient” were reasons written in by the respondents and so may be more sig nificant than the percentages indicate (Table 24). The respondents also differed in their reasons for not employing more auxiliary
personnel, according to the type of auxil iary personnel they employed. Of the den tists who employed laboratory technicians and secretaries-receptionists, a large per centage said that demand for dental care was not sufficient to keep additional per sonnel busy. None of the respondents who employed laboratory technicians or secre taries reported “Qualified personnel have not been available” as a reason for not employing more personnel. The unavaila
T a b le 2 3 • Responses t o th e q u e s tio n : “ A b o u t o n e -fifth o f a li d e n tis ts w o r k w ith o u t a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l. W h a t d o y o u th in k is th e m ain re a s o n ? " a c c o r d in g t o th e ty p e o f p e rs o n n e l e m p lo y e d
Reasons T h e ir p ra c tic e s a r e n o t busy e n o u g h t o w a rr a n t e m p lo ym e n t o f a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l T h e y p r e f e r t o w o r k a lo n e T h e y b e lie v e th a t p a tie n ts re se n t a u x ilia r y p e rs o n n e l in d e n ta l o ffic e s T h e y a r e n o t tra in e d t o use a u x ilia r y p e rs o n n e l T h e y a r e u n a w a re o f th e e c o n o m ic a d v a n ta g e s T h e y d o n o t w ish to in c re a s e th e ir o v e rh e a d M is c e lla n e o u s
H y g le n is ts , no assistants
Assistants, no hygienists
H yg ie n is ts and assistants
T ech nicians, s e c re ta rie s , no hygienists or assistants
44.2 40.7
44.7 30.6
39.7 26.8
50.0 50.0
51.6 43.3
44.7 31.8
2.3
1.4
1.0
12.5
4.4
1.8
30.2
33.0
41.2
25.0
12.8
31.8
1.2
3.3
6.1
0.0
1.0
3.5
7.0 1.2
6.1 4.3
7.6 5.7
6.3 6.3
3.3 6.3
6.0 4.9
No a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l*
A ll re s p o n d e n ts
*A few of these dentists employed personnel other than hygienists, technicians, assistants, secretaries or receptionists.
992 • J. A M E R . DENT. A SS N .: Vol. 70, A p ril 1965
Table 2 4 • Reasons f o r th e re s p o n d e n ts n o t e m p lo y in g m o re a u x ilia r y p e rs o n n e l. a c c o r d in g t o y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n
Reasons T h e re is n o t s u ffic ie n t d em and f o r d e n ta l c a r e t o ke e p a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l busy O ffic e a d m in is tra tio n w o u ld b e c o m e t o o d iffic u lt w ith a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l Q u a lifie d p e rs o n n e l h a v e n o t b e e n a v a ila b le P a tients p r e fe r t o h a v e th e d e n tis t d o as much o f th e w o r k as p o s s ib le A b e tte r s e rv ic e c a n be r e n d e re d w h e n th e d e n tis t p a ys c lo s e a tte n tio n to o ffic e d e ta ils O ffic e s p a c e is in s u ffic ie n t It is n o t w o r th in c re a s e d c o s t L a rg e r s ta ff is in e ffic ie n t M is c e lla n e o u s
Table 2 5 •
Reasons f o r p e rs o n n e l e m p lo y e d
th e
Reasons T h e re is n o t s u ffic ie n t d e m a n d f o r d e n ta l c a re t o k e e p a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l busy O ffic e a d m in is tra tio n w o u ld b e c o m e t o o d iffic u lt w ith a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l Q u a lifie d p e rs o n n e l h a v e n o t b e e n a v a ila b le P a tients p r e fe r t o h a v e th e d e n tis ts d o as much o f th e w o r k as p o s s ib le A b e tte r s e rv ic e c a n b e r e n d e re d w h e n th e d e n tis t p a ys c lo s e a tte n tio n t o o ffic e d e ta ils O ffic e s p a c e is in s u ffic ie n t It is n o t w o r th in c re a s e d c o s t L a rg e r s ta ff is in e ffic ie n t M is c e lla n e o u s
19001919
19201929
19301939
1940— 1949
19501959
19601964
A ll r e s p o n d e n ts
47.0
35.3
37.1
36.6
47.1
66.1
44.5
8.9
15.1
13.5
13.7
9.9
3.1
10.8
7.9
10.2
14.5
13.1
12.8
6.8
11.9
29.2
24.3
17.2
11.5
8.2
4.6
11.8
18.3 10.9 4.5 6.9 10.9
15.1 13.1 3.5 8.0 6.1
9.2 15.4 4.4 8.1 5.9
6.2 18.1 3.1 13.7 4.5
4.1 20.0 4.1 10.2 3.8
2.6 14.1 3 .8 6 .3 2.8
6.5 17.2 3.8 9.9 4.5
re s p o n d e n ts
not
e m p lo y in g
m o re
a u x ilia r y
p e rs o n n e l, a c c o r d in g
to
ty p e
H yg ienists, no assistants
Assistants, no hygienists
H y g ie n is ts and assistants
T e c h n ic ia n s , s e c re ta rie s ,. no h ygienists or assistants
33.7
43.8
29.9
62.5
49.3
17.4
10.1
13.4
12.5
5.1
10.1
11.6
12.4
11.3
0.0
5.4
11.2
7.0
12.3
4.0
12.5
15.6
11.1
5.8 15.1 4.7 8.1 5.8
6.3 16.9 3.3 7.3 3.4
2.6 18.3 4.8 21.4 3.2
12.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3
10.4 10.2 3.3 2.5 10.2
6.2 16.2 3.6 9.3 4.4
of
No a u x ilia r y p e r s o n n e l*
A ll re s p o n d e n ts
41.8
* A few o f these de n tists e m plo yed personnel o th e r than hygienists, technicians, assistants, secretaries o r reception ists.
bility of qualified personnel was listed as a reason by only 5.4 per cent of the re spondents who did not employ any auxil iary personnel. The respondents who em
ployed dental hygienists, dental assistants or both had much larger percentages of dentists who indicated that qualified per sonnel were not available. More than 20
REPORTS O F C O U N C IL S A N D BU REAUS • 993
Table 2 6 • N u m b e r and ty p e o f a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l th e re sp o n d e n ts w o u ld ha ve e m p lo y e d if q u a lifie d p e rs o n n e l had b e e n a v a ila b le N o . of a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l
P e rc e n ta g e o f r e s p o n d e n ts *
H yg ie n ists 0 1 2 o r m o re
35.2 62.7 2.1
L a b o ra to r y te ch n icia n s 0 1 2 o r m o re
81.9 17.4 0.7
D e n ta l assistants 0 1 2 o r m ore
68.0 29.2 2.8
S e c re ta rie s o r re c e p tio n is ts 0 1
83.3 16.7
*The percentages in this ta b le are based on those den tists answ ering this question (14.2 per c e n t o f all respond ents).
per cent of the respondents who employed dental hygienists and dental assistants said that a larger staff would be ineffi cient. This reason was reported by smaller percentages of respondents who employed
other types or no personnel at all (Table 25). The dentists were asked to indicate the number and type of additional personnel they would employ if qualified personnel were available. Replies were given by only 14.2 per cent of the respondents. The percentages in Table 26 represent only those dentists who responded to the item. Almost 65 per cent of the dentists who responded to this item said that they would have employed hygienists, if quali fied personnel had been available. Labo ratory technicians would have been em ployed by 18 per cent of the respondents, dental assistants by 32.0 per cent and sec retaries by 16.7 per cent (Table 26). In general, the respondents sought to employ personnel that differed from the types they already employed. The major ity of the respondents who did not employ any auxiliary personnel wished to employ dental assistants; the next most sought were dental hygienists, secretaries and lab oratory technicians. Table 27 shows the percentages of re
T a b le 2 7 • R espondents w h o w o u ld lik e t o e m p lo y a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l, a c c o r d in g t o re g io n
A d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l H y g ie n is t L a b o ra to r y te c h n ic ia n D e n ta l assistan t S e c re ta r y o r r e c e p tio n is t
New England
M id d le East
S o u th east
S o u th w est
11.3 2.5 3.4 2.0
6.0 1.3 3.7 1.7
12.0 3.3 5.0 3.6
9.7 2.1 ,3.2 1.2
C e n tra l 11.1 3.4 5.4 2.6
N o rth w est
Far W est
A ll r e s p o n d e n t!
13.8 3.2 6.2 3.8
6.2 2.2 3.7 1.6
9.2 2.5 4.4 2.3
Table 2 8 •
Responses t o th e q u e s tio n : " I f th e d e n ta l s c h o o l n e a re s t to - y o u o ffe r e d a re fre s h e r c o u rs e in ‘u tiliz a tio n o f a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l,' d o y o u th in k y o u w o u ld ta k e th e c o u rs e ? " a c c o r d in g t o th e ty p e o f p e rs o n n e l e m p lo y e d
Responses Yes No N o re s p o n s e T o ta l
H y g ie n is ts , no assistants
Assistants, no hygienists
H y g ie n is ts and assistants
T e c h n ic ia n s , s e c re ta rie s , no h y g ie n is ts or assistants
37.2 48.8 14.0
41.8 51.2 7.0
45.9 47.9 6.2
25.0 75.0 0.0
21.6 57.2 21.2
39.8 51.4 8.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
No a u x ilia ry p e r s o n n e l*
A ll re s p o n d e n ts
* A few of these dentists employed personnel other than hygienists, technicians, assistants, secretaries or receptionists.
994 • J. A M E R . DENT. A SSN .: Vol. 70, A p ril 1965
T a b le 2 9 • Responses t o th e q u e s tio n : " I f th e d e n ta l s c h o o l n e a re s t t o y o u o ffe r e d a r e fre s h e r c o u rs e in 'u t iliz a t io n o f a u x ilia r y p e rs o n n e l,’ d o y o u th in k y o u w o u ld ta k e th e c o u rs e ? '* a c c o r d in g . to th e y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n
Responses Yes No N o re s p o n s e T o ta l
19001919
19201929
19301939
19401949
19501959
19601964
A ll r e s p o n d e n ts
17.2 5 6.2 26.6
22.5 63.4 14.1
30.2 57.7 12.1
40.3 52.4 7.3
46.2 47.4 6.4
49.9 44.3 5.8
39.8 51.4 8.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0,
100.0
spondents from each region who would like to employ additional auxiliary per sonnel. The demand for additional aux iliary personnel was smaller in the Middle East, Southwest and Far West, than it was in the other regions. Table 27 is im portant, because it provides an approxi mation of the actual market for each type of auxiliary personnel. The dentists were asked: “If the den tal school nearest to you offered a re fresher course in ‘utilization of auxiliary personnel,’ do you think you would take the course?” The responses to this item were related to the type of personnel em ployed by the respondents and the year the respondents graduated from dental school. The respondents who employed dental hygienists, dental assistants and both den tal hygienists and dental assistants were
more favorably disposed toward taking a course in the utilization of auxiliary per sonnel than were the respondents who employed laboratory technicians, secretaries-receptionists or no auxiliary person nel. More than 50 per cent of all the respondents said that they would not take such a course (Table 28). Fewer than a fifth of the dentists who were graduated before 1920 reported that they would take a course in the utilization of auxiliary personnel. The respondents who were graduated in the following years regarded taking such a course with increasing favor, until almost 50 per cent of the respondents who were graduated in the 1960’s wanted to take a course in the utilization of auxiliary personnel (Table 29). The next c h a p te r w ill be concerned w ith th e s u p p ly o f d e n ta l hygienists and d e n ta l assistants.
C a n c er P atien ts • Between October, 19 63, and September, 19 6 4 , 3 3 9 ,0 0 0 visits w ere m ade to physicians’ offices by patients suffering from m alignant neoplasms of the buccal cavity and pharynx. N a tio n a l D isea se and T h e r a p e u tic I n d e x R e p o r t no. 16, 1965.
BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND STATISTICS
In the 1964 survey, one of the items on the questionnaire was “About one-fifth of all dentists work without auxiliary per sonnel. What do you think is the main reason?” The reason cited most often by the re spondents was “Their practices are not busy enough to warrant employment of auxiliary personnel.” This reason was more prominent among dentists who were graduated before 1920 than among those who were graduated after 1920. Another reason that was emphasized more by the older dentists was “They prefer to work alone.” A reason given greater stress by the younger dentists was “They are not trained to use auxiliary personnel.” “They are unaware of the economic advantages” and “They do not wish to increase their overhead” were not among the listed al ternatives on the questionnaire but were written in by some of the respondents. Because these were write-ins, they may be more significant than the percentages in dicate (Table 22).
Table 23 shows the correlation between the respondents’ opinion of why dentists work without auxiliary personnel and the type of personnel employed by the re spondents. The most interesting aspect of Table 23 revolves around the answer that “They are not trained to use auxiliary personnel.” The largest percentage of re spondents who cited this reason were those who employed both dental hygienists and dental assistants, whereas the smallest percentage was the respondents who did not employ any auxiliary per sonnel. Each respondent was asked to indicate the reason why he did not employ more auxiliary personnel. The largest percent age of all the respondents said, “There is not sufficient demand for dental care to keep additional personnel busy.” This re sponse came from a larger proportion of dentists who were graduated in the 1960’s than in preceding years. “Patients prefer to have the dentist do as much of the work as possible” and “A better serv
REPORTS O F C O U N C IL S A N D BU R EA U S • 991
Table 2 2 • R esponses t o th e q u e s tio n : “ A b o u t o n e -fifth o f a ll d e n tis ts w o r k w ith o u t a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l. W h a t d o y o u th in k is th e m ain r e a s o n ? " a c c o r d in g t o y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n
Reasons T h e ir p ra c tic e s a re n o t busy e n o u g h t o w a r r a n t e m p lo y m ent o f a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l T h e y p r e fe r t o w o r k a lo n e T h e y b e lie v e th a t p a tie n ts re se n t a u x ilia r y p e rs o n n e l in d e n ta l o ffic e s T h e y a r e n o t tra in e d t o use a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l T h e y a r e u n a w a re o f th e e c o n o m ic a d v a n ta g e s T h e y d o n o t w ish t o In c re a s e th e ir o v e rh e a d M is c e lla n e o u s
A ll r e
19001919
19 2 0 1929
19301939
19401949
19501959
19601964
s p o n d e n ts
54.3 41.6
45.2 46.7
46.9 38.4
46.1 34.8
46.4 28.7
43.5 23.9
46.0 32.7
5.0
3.2
2.2
2.4
1.3
0.1
1.8
23.3
26.9
30.7
32.5
34.7
37.9
32.7
0.5
2.8
2.4
4.1
4.5
2.8
3.6
5.0 6.8
5.8 4.3
5.4 6.0
5.3 6.0
7.2 4.3
6.2 3.3
6.2 4.8
ice can be rendered when the dentist pays close attention to office details” were rea sons given by greater proportions of older dentists than younger dentists. “It is not worth increased cost” and “Larger staff is inefficient” were reasons written in by the respondents and so may be more sig nificant than the percentages indicate (Table 24). The respondents also differed in their reasons for not employing more auxiliary
personnel, according to the type of auxil iary personnel they employed. Of the den tists who employed laboratory technicians and secretaries-receptionists, a large per centage said that demand for dental care was not sufficient to keep additional per sonnel busy. None of the respondents who employed laboratory technicians or secre taries reported “Qualified personnel have not been available” as a reason for not employing more personnel. The unavaila
T a b le 2 3 • Responses t o th e q u e s tio n : “ A b o u t o n e -fifth o f a li d e n tis ts w o r k w ith o u t a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l. W h a t d o y o u th in k is th e m ain re a s o n ? " a c c o r d in g t o th e ty p e o f p e rs o n n e l e m p lo y e d
Reasons T h e ir p ra c tic e s a r e n o t busy e n o u g h t o w a rr a n t e m p lo ym e n t o f a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l T h e y p r e f e r t o w o r k a lo n e T h e y b e lie v e th a t p a tie n ts re se n t a u x ilia r y p e rs o n n e l in d e n ta l o ffic e s T h e y a r e n o t tra in e d t o use a u x ilia r y p e rs o n n e l T h e y a r e u n a w a re o f th e e c o n o m ic a d v a n ta g e s T h e y d o n o t w ish to in c re a s e th e ir o v e rh e a d M is c e lla n e o u s
H y g le n is ts , no assistants
Assistants, no hygienists
H yg ie n is ts and assistants
T ech nicians, s e c re ta rie s , no hygienists or assistants
44.2 40.7
44.7 30.6
39.7 26.8
50.0 50.0
51.6 43.3
44.7 31.8
2.3
1.4
1.0
12.5
4.4
1.8
30.2
33.0
41.2
25.0
12.8
31.8
1.2
3.3
6.1
0.0
1.0
3.5
7.0 1.2
6.1 4.3
7.6 5.7
6.3 6.3
3.3 6.3
6.0 4.9
No a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l*
A ll re s p o n d e n ts
*A few of these dentists employed personnel other than hygienists, technicians, assistants, secretaries or receptionists.
992 • J. A M E R . DENT. A SS N .: Vol. 70, A p ril 1965
Table 2 4 • Reasons f o r th e re s p o n d e n ts n o t e m p lo y in g m o re a u x ilia r y p e rs o n n e l. a c c o r d in g t o y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n
Reasons T h e re is n o t s u ffic ie n t d em and f o r d e n ta l c a r e t o ke e p a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l busy O ffic e a d m in is tra tio n w o u ld b e c o m e t o o d iffic u lt w ith a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l Q u a lifie d p e rs o n n e l h a v e n o t b e e n a v a ila b le P a tients p r e fe r t o h a v e th e d e n tis t d o as much o f th e w o r k as p o s s ib le A b e tte r s e rv ic e c a n be r e n d e re d w h e n th e d e n tis t p a ys c lo s e a tte n tio n to o ffic e d e ta ils O ffic e s p a c e is in s u ffic ie n t It is n o t w o r th in c re a s e d c o s t L a rg e r s ta ff is in e ffic ie n t M is c e lla n e o u s
Table 2 5 •
Reasons f o r p e rs o n n e l e m p lo y e d
th e
Reasons T h e re is n o t s u ffic ie n t d e m a n d f o r d e n ta l c a re t o k e e p a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l busy O ffic e a d m in is tra tio n w o u ld b e c o m e t o o d iffic u lt w ith a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l Q u a lifie d p e rs o n n e l h a v e n o t b e e n a v a ila b le P a tients p r e fe r t o h a v e th e d e n tis ts d o as much o f th e w o r k as p o s s ib le A b e tte r s e rv ic e c a n b e r e n d e re d w h e n th e d e n tis t p a ys c lo s e a tte n tio n t o o ffic e d e ta ils O ffic e s p a c e is in s u ffic ie n t It is n o t w o r th in c re a s e d c o s t L a rg e r s ta ff is in e ffic ie n t M is c e lla n e o u s
19001919
19201929
19301939
1940— 1949
19501959
19601964
A ll r e s p o n d e n ts
47.0
35.3
37.1
36.6
47.1
66.1
44.5
8.9
15.1
13.5
13.7
9.9
3.1
10.8
7.9
10.2
14.5
13.1
12.8
6.8
11.9
29.2
24.3
17.2
11.5
8.2
4.6
11.8
18.3 10.9 4.5 6.9 10.9
15.1 13.1 3.5 8.0 6.1
9.2 15.4 4.4 8.1 5.9
6.2 18.1 3.1 13.7 4.5
4.1 20.0 4.1 10.2 3.8
2.6 14.1 3 .8 6 .3 2.8
6.5 17.2 3.8 9.9 4.5
re s p o n d e n ts
not
e m p lo y in g
m o re
a u x ilia r y
p e rs o n n e l, a c c o r d in g
to
ty p e
H yg ienists, no assistants
Assistants, no hygienists
H y g ie n is ts and assistants
T e c h n ic ia n s , s e c re ta rie s ,. no h ygienists or assistants
33.7
43.8
29.9
62.5
49.3
17.4
10.1
13.4
12.5
5.1
10.1
11.6
12.4
11.3
0.0
5.4
11.2
7.0
12.3
4.0
12.5
15.6
11.1
5.8 15.1 4.7 8.1 5.8
6.3 16.9 3.3 7.3 3.4
2.6 18.3 4.8 21.4 3.2
12.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3
10.4 10.2 3.3 2.5 10.2
6.2 16.2 3.6 9.3 4.4
of
No a u x ilia r y p e r s o n n e l*
A ll re s p o n d e n ts
41.8
* A few o f these de n tists e m plo yed personnel o th e r than hygienists, technicians, assistants, secretaries o r reception ists.
bility of qualified personnel was listed as a reason by only 5.4 per cent of the re spondents who did not employ any auxil iary personnel. The respondents who em
ployed dental hygienists, dental assistants or both had much larger percentages of dentists who indicated that qualified per sonnel were not available. More than 20
REPORTS O F C O U N C IL S A N D BU REAUS • 993
Table 2 6 • N u m b e r and ty p e o f a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l th e re sp o n d e n ts w o u ld ha ve e m p lo y e d if q u a lifie d p e rs o n n e l had b e e n a v a ila b le N o . of a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l
P e rc e n ta g e o f r e s p o n d e n ts *
H yg ie n ists 0 1 2 o r m o re
35.2 62.7 2.1
L a b o ra to r y te ch n icia n s 0 1 2 o r m o re
81.9 17.4 0.7
D e n ta l assistants 0 1 2 o r m ore
68.0 29.2 2.8
S e c re ta rie s o r re c e p tio n is ts 0 1
83.3 16.7
*The percentages in this ta b le are based on those den tists answ ering this question (14.2 per c e n t o f all respond ents).
per cent of the respondents who employed dental hygienists and dental assistants said that a larger staff would be ineffi cient. This reason was reported by smaller percentages of respondents who employed
other types or no personnel at all (Table 25). The dentists were asked to indicate the number and type of additional personnel they would employ if qualified personnel were available. Replies were given by only 14.2 per cent of the respondents. The percentages in Table 26 represent only those dentists who responded to the item. Almost 65 per cent of the dentists who responded to this item said that they would have employed hygienists, if quali fied personnel had been available. Labo ratory technicians would have been em ployed by 18 per cent of the respondents, dental assistants by 32.0 per cent and sec retaries by 16.7 per cent (Table 26). In general, the respondents sought to employ personnel that differed from the types they already employed. The major ity of the respondents who did not employ any auxiliary personnel wished to employ dental assistants; the next most sought were dental hygienists, secretaries and lab oratory technicians. Table 27 shows the percentages of re
T a b le 2 7 • R espondents w h o w o u ld lik e t o e m p lo y a d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l, a c c o r d in g t o re g io n
A d d itio n a l p e rs o n n e l H y g ie n is t L a b o ra to r y te c h n ic ia n D e n ta l assistan t S e c re ta r y o r r e c e p tio n is t
New England
M id d le East
S o u th east
S o u th w est
11.3 2.5 3.4 2.0
6.0 1.3 3.7 1.7
12.0 3.3 5.0 3.6
9.7 2.1 ,3.2 1.2
C e n tra l 11.1 3.4 5.4 2.6
N o rth w est
Far W est
A ll r e s p o n d e n t!
13.8 3.2 6.2 3.8
6.2 2.2 3.7 1.6
9.2 2.5 4.4 2.3
Table 2 8 •
Responses t o th e q u e s tio n : " I f th e d e n ta l s c h o o l n e a re s t to - y o u o ffe r e d a re fre s h e r c o u rs e in ‘u tiliz a tio n o f a u x ilia ry p e rs o n n e l,' d o y o u th in k y o u w o u ld ta k e th e c o u rs e ? " a c c o r d in g t o th e ty p e o f p e rs o n n e l e m p lo y e d
Responses Yes No N o re s p o n s e T o ta l
H y g ie n is ts , no assistants
Assistants, no hygienists
H y g ie n is ts and assistants
T e c h n ic ia n s , s e c re ta rie s , no h y g ie n is ts or assistants
37.2 48.8 14.0
41.8 51.2 7.0
45.9 47.9 6.2
25.0 75.0 0.0
21.6 57.2 21.2
39.8 51.4 8.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
No a u x ilia ry p e r s o n n e l*
A ll re s p o n d e n ts
* A few of these dentists employed personnel other than hygienists, technicians, assistants, secretaries or receptionists.
994 • J. A M E R . DENT. A SSN .: Vol. 70, A p ril 1965
T a b le 2 9 • Responses t o th e q u e s tio n : " I f th e d e n ta l s c h o o l n e a re s t t o y o u o ffe r e d a r e fre s h e r c o u rs e in 'u t iliz a t io n o f a u x ilia r y p e rs o n n e l,’ d o y o u th in k y o u w o u ld ta k e th e c o u rs e ? '* a c c o r d in g . to th e y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n
Responses Yes No N o re s p o n s e T o ta l
19001919
19201929
19301939
19401949
19501959
19601964
A ll r e s p o n d e n ts
17.2 5 6.2 26.6
22.5 63.4 14.1
30.2 57.7 12.1
40.3 52.4 7.3
46.2 47.4 6.4
49.9 44.3 5.8
39.8 51.4 8.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0,
100.0
spondents from each region who would like to employ additional auxiliary per sonnel. The demand for additional aux iliary personnel was smaller in the Middle East, Southwest and Far West, than it was in the other regions. Table 27 is im portant, because it provides an approxi mation of the actual market for each type of auxiliary personnel. The dentists were asked: “If the den tal school nearest to you offered a re fresher course in ‘utilization of auxiliary personnel,’ do you think you would take the course?” The responses to this item were related to the type of personnel em ployed by the respondents and the year the respondents graduated from dental school. The respondents who employed dental hygienists, dental assistants and both den tal hygienists and dental assistants were
more favorably disposed toward taking a course in the utilization of auxiliary per sonnel than were the respondents who employed laboratory technicians, secretaries-receptionists or no auxiliary person nel. More than 50 per cent of all the respondents said that they would not take such a course (Table 28). Fewer than a fifth of the dentists who were graduated before 1920 reported that they would take a course in the utilization of auxiliary personnel. The respondents who were graduated in the following years regarded taking such a course with increasing favor, until almost 50 per cent of the respondents who were graduated in the 1960’s wanted to take a course in the utilization of auxiliary personnel (Table 29). The next c h a p te r w ill be concerned w ith th e s u p p ly o f d e n ta l hygienists and d e n ta l assistants.
C a n c er P atien ts • Between October, 19 63, and September, 19 6 4 , 3 3 9 ,0 0 0 visits w ere m ade to physicians’ offices by patients suffering from m alignant neoplasms of the buccal cavity and pharynx. N a tio n a l D isea se and T h e r a p e u tic I n d e x R e p o r t no. 16, 1965.