Case study – the importance of performing a thorough examination and not just the requested treatment

The case:

The patient attended the general dentist seeking treatment for multiple broken and sore teeth. The initial treatment plan was to extract the 44 root stump, place a crown on the 14 and make an upper and lower denture. The upper denture was to support the missing 15 tooth and the lower denture was to support pontics/false teeth in the 37, 36 and 44.

The treatment plan was revised after the dentist examined the OPG and following further discussion with the patient. The patient said he did not want an upper denture and preferred something permanent so the dentist suggested he was a suitable candidate for a bridge. The patient also preferred not to have the 44 root stump extracted so the dentist said he would try to smooth down the root stump so as not to interfere with the lower denture. The dentist said he warned the patient that leaving the stump could ‘cause trouble’ with the denture.

The dentist took impressions for the upper bridge and lower denture and the upper bridge was eventually cemented. The lower denture was fitted and all seemed ok. The patient did not return for the planned 6 month check-up.

The patient’s complaint to the Health Commission painted a very different picture of the treatment provided by the dentist. The patient did not return to the dentist because he says he was so upset by the final product of the upper bridge and lower denture.   He says that the upper bridge had never felt right since it was placed.

The patient ended up attending a public dental service a little over 7 days after the upper bridge was cemented and lower denture issued. He was found to have a severely infected 47 which required extraction. Further radiology showed that the 17 had a periapical abscess and was also extracted.

The dental service found that the bridge was in “hyper-occlusion and high in normal occlusion/bite”. The dental service adjusted the bridge abutment on tooth 16. The dentist’s opinion of the restorative treatment performed on 16 was that the “bridge in this section appears not to be have been seated properly or too large (poor fit) for tooth preparation”.

A subsequent review by an independent expert found that the dentist had failed to examine and treat the underlying infections to the patient’s teeth in the upper and lower right quadrants. These teeth required extraction shortly after the treatment was completed by the dentist and the expert reached the conclusion that there must have been signs of infection apparent at the last consultation with the dentist.

With respect to the upper bridge (which was to replace the missing 15) it was noted that the dentist did not conduct vitality testing to the abutment teeth 16 or 14. The dentist says he did test for vitality but was not in the practice of recording that he had done so in his notes (unless there was a problem finding).

The expert was critical of the dentist for failing to take a periapical radiograph to review the root filling on the 14 prior to bridgework. The expert queried why the dentist had gone ahead with the bridge ‘when visible apical radiolucencies were associated with teeth 17 and 47 both of which subsequently required extraction’. The dentist was forced to concede that he did not take x-rays of the area where the bridge was being placed because it was his practice to only take x-rays if the OPG showed areas of concern.   This explanation was not accepted by the expert.

The independent expert ultimately found that the 14 should not have been used for the bridge because it was a root-filled tooth and too weak to be an abutment tooth.

The 16 was used to support the bridge’s ‘rest’ and that failed due to the nature of the patient’s oral condition. It also appeared that no recess was made available in the filling of the tooth 16 to accommodate the bridge’s rest, with the result being a rest that sits ‘above’ tooth 16 rather than sits passively ‘within’ the tooth as a stress-breaker. Either way, the bridge was found to have failed and the 16 required urgent attention because of its use as a rest tooth for the bridge.

The expert expressed the opinion that the dentist’s justifications for his treatment choices “demonstrated a basic lack of comprehension of pulp sensitivity testing and raised real concerns about the dentist’s ability to even understand basic endodontic diagnosis”. The expert found the dentist’s choice of bridge design was “difficult to justify” especially because the practitioner could not produce treatment records to support his explanations, and because there was no evidence of charting and no study casts.

The outcome

The case eventually settled for approximately $15,000 which included an allowance for pain and suffering (given the amount of time the patient had the unsatisfactory bridge and denture placed) and the costs of restorative treatment involved in the placement of the bridge.

Lessons to be learned

  • It is expected that practitioners’ records will record the advice given to the patient on treatment options and the patient’s consent. It is important that the records contain all diagnostic information relevant to that discussion. Working casts for items such as a bridge ought to be retained and practitioners must be able to demonstrate that the bridge design and insertion produced an appropriate fit for the patient.
  • The case reinforces the expectation that general dentists must be competent with their diagnostic skills including radiographic interpretation as part of treatment planning.
  • It is crucial that the treatment records include proper charting and the diagnosis following radiographic evaluations and all diagnostic tests, including vitality tests, percussion tests etc. and even where the results are ‘normal’.

It was noted that this dentist’s CPD activities consisted exclusively of on-line podcasts with his peers. The expert commented that practitioners benefit from interaction with their peers and attending education events in person can be of “immense benefit”.

Caroline Tuohey
Senior Associate
Meridian Lawyers

Kellie Dell’Oro
Principal
Meridian Lawyers

Similar Articles

  •

    Property maintenance - could your property cause an injury?

    Guild Insurance sees many insurance claims which have come about due to poor maintenance of a property.  In too many of these cases, the poor state of the building or its grounds is obvious and it’s quite surprising, as well as disappointing, that repairs haven’t been carried out before an incident has occurred.

    What can go wrong?

    There are a range of incidents which can occur due to poor maintenance of a property.  Staff can be injured leading to a worker’s compensation claim as well as staff being absent from work for an extended period.  Visitors to the premises, such as customers, clients or contractors, can also suffer injuries leading to public liability claims.  As well as the insurance claims which need to be managed, there’s the added stress of knowing that someone has been injured while at your premises.  Some of these injuries can be very serious and life changing.  Unfortunately, the hazards which lead to these injuries are often not viewed as seriously as they should be.  Yet with appropriate property maintenance many of these injuries could be avoided.

    Case 1

    A client entered a building and tripped over an edge of carpet which was ripped and curled up.  The client sustained a fractured wrist when they landed.

    Case 2

    An awning out the front of a building was old and worn out.  During heavy winds it broke off from the building and hit a person walking past at the time.

    Case 3

    While walking through the carpark of a premises, a staff member has tripped on a large crack in the asphalt which had caused the surface to be uneven.  They fractured their ankle as they fell.

    Case 4

    Poor maintenance doesn’t just lead to people suffering injuries, it can also lead to further damage to the property.  An old deteriorating roof collapsed when hit by heavy rain as it no longer had the strength to support the weight of this rainfall.  This led to excessive water damage within the building.

    Property maintenance tips

    • Have a documented maintenance program in place. This requires a schedule for regularly checking the property to identify hazards as well as details on what needs to be serviced, repaired or replaced and when.
    • Be aware of the out-of-sight, out-of-mind hazards. Many properties have roofs, guttering and downpipes in poor condition due to a lack of maintenance as no one has thought to get up on the roof and inspect it. Include the less obvious hazards in the maintenance program.
    • Have a maintenance budget. Some maintenance work can be planned, other work will come up unexpectedly when something breaks down. You need to be able to find money to fix hazards when identified.
    • Be sure to use qualified tradespeople to undertaken maintenance work. While it can be tempting to undertake some DIY and save money, the risk of things not being maintained or repaired correctly will not be worth the savings in the long term.
    • If you’re a tenant, be aware of what you’re responsible for maintaining and what’s the responsibility of the landlord. Not all tenancy agreements are the same, so you need to be across the details of your agreement.
    • Don’t wait to undertake maintenance till a more convenient time. There are many cases of injuries occurring due to hazards which had been identified but not yet acted upon, usually due to costs, time or not acknowledging the risk of the hazard.
    • All staff have a responsibility to create and maintain a safe workspace. Some hazards will be identified through regular property inspections, however, you can’t rely solely on these inspections. Therefore, encourage all staff to continually be on the lookout for hazards and to speak up when they see something.
    • Don’t think it won’t happen to you and your property. These incidents are a lot more common that many people realise.

    Download Property Maintenance article

  •

    Orthodontic and third-party agreements: risks and concerns.

    In recent times, there has been a growing number of companies on the internet offering orthodontics like braces, aligners, and other products that people can use at home. While the convenience is very appealing for patients, the same can’t be said about the risks and concerns that come with partnering with foreign-based aligner companies. With the recent demise of two overseas aligner providers, some dentists have not been able to continue patient care in the middle of a course of orthodontic treatment. This has resulted in patient complaints against dentists, who had no part in the companies’ collapse but are left to manage the fallout and develop a re-treatment plan with another aligner provider.

    Another recent development is that patients are asking dentists to place attachments for “at-home, do-it-yourself” aligner treatment. Seeing that this is a complex issue, the ADAVB has approached their advisors at Meridian Lawyers to make general comments about the pitfalls for dentists undertaking either of these two types of treatment. Their advice is that the provision of aligners and/or attachments may make the dentist liable for any adverse treatment outcomes and possibly affect a dentist’s professional indemnity (PI) cover.

    The ADAVB recommends that any member undertaking orthodontic treatment with third-party aligner providers familiarise themselves with the risks and ensure that they are not exposing themselves to additional liability, which may place them in a precarious position when defending a claim.

    Major concerns 

    Treatment plans by aligner companies are often computer-generated offshore with some input from a technician. Blindly following these plans may result in a compromised outcome and potentially irreversible damage. Orthodontists often make changes before a satisfactory plan is reached and may even further modify plans during treatment, depending on the progress. As the clinician, you’re responsible for the treatment and any adverse outcomes, not the aligner company that generated the treatment plan.

    As a result, any claims by patients would most likely be against the dentist or the clinic. Contractual and duty of care considerations need to be taken into account. Even if the contract says the aligner company will cover your liability, that can’t be enforced. By Australian law, the dentist cannot delegate liability for treatment performed to another party. So, in the end, the problem comes back to bite the dentist.

    Fault by association

    A claim against the aligner provider would necessitate chasing shelf and overseas companies, making it almost

    impossible for the patient. The patient will turn to the only person they can reach and direct the blame to – their dentist. It should be noted that at present, there are two class action claims in courts overseas against aligner providers, but these may take years to play out, and it’s unknown if they will be successful.

    An insurer is not privy to the contracts dentists sign or warranties offered by aligner companies. This means warranties deflect back to the dentist and may not be covered under a professional indemnity policy. In Australia, health service providers cannot give warranties, so that part of the company’s “promise” is worthless unless it relates specifically to the aligners themselves (breakages, replacements, etc), not treatment outcomes. 

    The issue with consent

    Informed consent is potentially lacking as most dentists are utilising documents supplied by the aligner company, which in many cases, are not comprehensive enough to satisfy the Australian Code of Conduct requirements.

    Less experienced dentists are often targeted to promote this type of orthodontic treatment as an easy treatment option to provide to patients. Patients seeking aligner treatment usually have high expectations, and it can be challenging to achieve the desired result using aligners only. 

    Unaligned with Australian laws

    While there is a high demand for DIY aligners, dentists should be mindful that undertaking treatments designed by a foreign company can bring more damage than good, especially as they don’t usually meet the standards set by

    Australian authorities. Some examples of these breaches include:

    > Against regulatory guidelines: advertising may not be compliant with Ahpra’s Code of Conduct because the company is based abroad.

    > Products may not be TGA approved (as required in any PI policy): there is a high risk that the insurer may reject a claim when these devices are being used.

    > Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) may be broken by sending confidential patient information overseas: if there is a breach of privacy, the insurer can deny cover as the policy wording indicates the dentists must abide by the APPs in how they store patient information. Foreign companies are not bound by the APPs, so a dentist must weigh the risks and inform the patient about the potential breach of confidentiality before undertaking treatment. In saying that, the risk

    remains that an indemnity claim could still be denied.

    > Companies may offer incentives or discounts, equipment, etc: these all need transparent disclosure under Ahpra’s regulatory framework. If you don’t disclose these on all advertising and patient material, you could be in breach of Ahpra

    or TGA’s advertising standards and guidelines.

    A professional indemnity policy is a contract between you and your insurer, and part of that contract is that you will abide by all regulatory requirements, and the issues mentioned above may expose you to a regulatory finding of

    unsatisfactory professional conduct.

    The ADAVB recognises that there are a lot of hidden issues that members are not familiar with. It’s strongly recommended that you consider your practice before agreeing to take on such treatments. ADAVB has provided some links to follow if you would like more information. You can also speak to your Account Manager or contact Guild Insurance at 1800 810 213 to review your policy for coverage and exclusions.

    Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) – Guidelines for advertising
    Therapeutic Goods Administration – The Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code:  tga.gov.au/about-tga/legislation/legislationand- legislative-instruments/therapeutic-goodsadvertising- code

     

    Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) – Australian Privacy Principles: oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles

    communication
  •

    Understanding social media risks

    Social media is an ever increasing form of communication for many people in both their personal and professional lives. It presents people with many benefits in allowing them to communicate a variety of messages to many people with great speed and efficiency. However, those benefits need to be balanced with the many risks social media presents.

    Social media is a very broad term which includes any websites and applications which allow users to interact with other people as well as create or share information (text, photos, videos etc.).

    There are endless examples where people appear to have not stopped and thought before they’ve posted on social media. Poorly considered social media posts can and do affect the personal and professional reputation and image of individuals as well as a businesses; even if the post isn’t directly related to a business.

    The following tips will assist individuals and businesses manage their risks when using social media.

    1. Have a business plan for how and why social media is to be used
    When deciding whether or not to create a business social media presence, it’s very easy to think ‘if everyone else is doing it, so should I’.  However there needs to be greater thought put into this decision.  The decision to use social media should be well thought out and based on a company’s needs and business plans; the benefits and risks need to be considered.

    2. Business social media should be based on business requirements, not personal views
    Business owners and managers need to be sure that when they make a decision on whether to use social media for their business, this decision is based on the needs of the organisation, not the owner’s/manager’s personal views of social media.  For example, a person who chooses to not use Twitter for personal use may still decide it’s a great tool for them professionally.  Business decisions and personal decisions regarding social media use should be separated.

    3. Create clear business guidelines and processes regarding who is able to post on social media and how this is to be done
    Due to the risks associated with social media interactions, it’s very important that businesses have a clear process for who is responsible for posting on social media.  The person undertaking this role needs to understand when social media is an appropriate form of communication and what sort of messages are to be shared using social media.  This process should also provide guidance on how often social media is monitored and responded to and how to respond to negative comments.

    4. Consider training for those staff responsible for social media
    It’s often assumed that young people are well versed in social media use however this isn’t always the case.  Also, not all users of social media understand appropriate business use and its associated risks.  Therefore it’s worth considering training in social media communications and its risks for the responsible staff members.

    5. Understand the social media site you’re using
    There’s a wide variety of social media sites available to businesses, all providing similar yet different benefits.  When a business is using any of these sites, it’s very important they understand the various functions within that site.  Not fully understanding how a site works is going to increase the risks of using it.

    6. Consider what messages should be shared using social media
    All businesses have various ways in which they communicate with their customers and clients.  Social media is generally designed for short sharp messages, yet not all information suits this style of communication.  When businesses are communicating with their customers, they need to carefully consider how that particular message should be shared.

    7. Carefully consider the implications of engaging with clients on social media
    Professionals and businesses should consider if social media is an appropriate forum for them to be communicating with clients, both through business or personal accounts.  Engagement through personal accounts can blur professional boundaries.  When using business accounts, some conversations may not suit social media, especially if the conversation appears in a public setting.  It’s important to consider what conversations are best had away from social media and when to take a discussion off line.

    8. Your business social media use must adhere to the Ahpra Advertising Guidelines
    Ahpra regulated professionals need to adhere to Ahpra’s Advertising Guidelines with all of their advertising.  This includes any advertising or promotion done using any social media site.

    9. Understand that you can no longer separate personal and professional use
    Unfortunately many people hold a view that what they write within a personal social media account in their own time will have no bearing or impact on them professionally.  However this is not the case.  Whether fair or not, professionals are always representing their profession and professional self; personal social media posts can be considered to be representing a professional view.  Therefore the professional impact needs to be considered before any personal post is made.

    10. Don’t believe that any post is ever private
    Too often people post information on social media which they intended to remain private and not be seen widely.  However social media can never truly be private.  Many online groups claim to be private and state that members require approval.  However non-approved users don’t need to be particularly savvy to access these groups and then share or copy information being posted.  Professionals need to remember that if they don’t want their colleagues, clients or competitors seeing a social media post, it should never be posted on either personal or business accounts.

    11. Never post in haste, all posts need to be carefully considered
    As mentioned earlier, social media is designed for quick short messages to be shared widely.  This means social media can encourage messages to be shared with little thought or planning which on occasions leads to poorly worded messages which are easily misinterpreted.  It’s important to pause and think through a message before it’s shared.

    Download PDF here


    Guild Insurance Limited ABN 55 004 538 863, AFS Licence No. 233 791.  This article contains information of a general nature only, and is not intended to constitute the provision of legal advice. Guild Insurance supports your Association through the payment of referral fees for certain products or services you take out with them    .

    social-media
See more

The information supplied by you will be received, retained, used and disclosed by Guild Insurance Limited and its related companies and business partners for the primary purpose of providing you with further information on, evaluating, affecting, managing and administering products and services offered by Guild Insurance Limited and its related companies and business partners.

You may at any time request that no further marketing material be sent to you by clicking ‘unsubscribe’ via email communication. You may also access the personal information Guild Insurance Limited holds about you by contacting: Phone:  1800 810 213

© Copyright Guild Group Holdings Limited