View report page

about one half of these parents actually responded to appointments to attend. It appears
therefore, that some 20 per cent, of London schoolchildren will, at the present stage of
developments, avail themselves of the school dental service; this would seem to indicate
that on the basis of the present school population of 414,598 the school dental service
may expect to be asked to provide attention for some 83,000 children.
With regard to the remaining 65 per cent, of the parents—i.e. those who replied stating
that they would be making their own arrangements for their children's dental care—it was
not, of course, so easy to obtain so exact a picture of the proportion of these children who
actually attended for treatment, as not all general dental service practitioners were prepared
to co-operate and not all parents actually named a dentist. The picture does emerge however,
from the cross-section samples obtained from the London Executive Council, of some 50 per
cent, of attendances. It is interesting to note that the failure rate was similar to that for the
school dental service.
This common failure rate of around 50 per cent, both of those who nominated a National
Health Service dentist and of those who chose the school dental service—is disturbing
but can hardly be unexpected as dental treatment is seldom regarded with enthusiasm.
It must be stressed that these figures reflect the position at one given time, that a follow-up
service operates for non-attenders and that parents who do not send their children for
treatment one year may do so the next. It must also be remembered that pain acts as a
spur to attendance for treatment and that children so attending will receive not only
treatment for the immediate emergency but also be offered such other treatment as may
be found necessary. It can be accepted in fact that, one way or another, the great majority
of schoolchildren in London do receive relatively frequent dental treatment during their
school life, though not necessarily as often as is desirable.
During 1964 officers of the Department of Education and Science and of the Ministry
of Health were consulted informally about the scheme and expressed great interest (as did
the Estimates Committee of the House of Commons on the Dental Services in 1962). They
pointed out, however, that there remains a statutory duty to inspect the mouths of children
at schools and suggested that this might be met in a manner acceptable to all by continuing
at least one school dental inspection during school life. They thought that this could be
carried out with greatest benefit on school entrants and this is particularly valid because
this is the one dental inspection which parents are most likely to attend. This would
therefore afford the best opportunity to impress on parents the importance of regular
attendance for care by a dental practitioner and the various ways in which professional
dental services can be obtained.
In September 1964 a report on the above lines was submitted to the relevant Committees
carrying the following recommendations;
(a) All children should have a dental inspection at five years of age or as soon as possible
thereafter, and all parents should then be informed of the Council's arrangements for
dental care and their responsibilities for their children's dental health.
(b) Each year parents to be reminded of the need for an annual dental check and asked
whether they wish their children to have this at one of the Council's surgeries or by a
National Health Service dentist.
(c) A follow-up of any children found at routine medical or hygiene inspections to be
in need of dental treatment.
The recommendations were approved.
Further support for the scheme was forthcoming when the developments were reported
to the Central Consultative Committee of Headmasters and Headmistresses and to the
Standing Joint Advisory Committee of Teachers and Officers. The London Executive
Council and the London Local Dental Committee were also furnished with a copy of the
official report on the scheme and were officially thanked for their co-operation in the
experiment.
129