ABSTRACT
Background
Medical emergencies in dental settings are uncommon but potentially life‐threatening, and the response depends on practitioner training, institutional protocols and available equipment. Little has been published on these elements in Ghanaian dental services. This study described self‐reported emergency encounters, training status, protocol awareness, equipment availability and perceived challenges at one tertiary facility.
Methodology
A descriptive cross‐sectional study was conducted at the Oral Health Directorate, Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi. All 78 dentists on the roster were approached (attempted census); 62 returned completed self‐administered questionnaires over 14 consecutive working days (response rate 79.5%). All variables were categorical, summarised as frequencies and percentages. Associations of rank and years of practice with formal emergency‐management training status were examined using
χ
2
tests with Yates’ correction and Fisher's exact test with odds ratios (ORs).
Results
Percentages denote the proportion of 62 respondents reporting each multiple‐response item, not the frequency of events among patients. Hypoglycaemia (87.1%) and syncope (79.0%) were most often reported as ever encountered, then asthma attack (69.4%), seizures (62.9%) and anaphylaxis (48.4%). Thirty‐six (58.1%) reported formal training, 22 (35.5%) a written protocol and none an automated external defibrillator (AED). Training was reported more often by senior than junior dentists (69.2% vs. 39.1%;
p
= 0.040; OR 3.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19–10.29); the association with years of practice was borderline and test‐dependent (Yates‐corrected
p
= 0.052; Fisher's exact
p
= 0.039; OR 3.20, 95% CI 1.12–9.15). Commonest challenges were inadequate equipment (87.1%), lack of training (72.6%) and no clear protocol (69.4%).
Conclusion
Two in five dentists reported no formal emergency‐management training, most were unaware of a written protocol, and none reported access to an AED. These self‐reported, single‐centre findings suggest that periodic training, written protocols and verified equipment stocks merit institutional attention; confirmation in larger multi‐centre studies is needed.