04/23/2019

Balance honesty with objectivity when addressing prior treatment


Dentists are naturally proud of their profession. After all, they’ve built a life around helping patients improve and maintain their oral health. So, it’s understandable to be a bit disconcerted when they come across questionable work performed by a colleague.

Dentists often find themselves in an awkward predicament when a patient presents with what appears to be substandard work by another provider. On one hand, patients have a right to be informed about the state of their oral health. On the other, dentists should avoid openly criticizing another dentist’s work, even if that criticism may be justified. Finding the right balance between candidness and refrain can be tricky.

In a case reported to The Dentists Insurance Company, a dentist saw a patient who had mild discomfort on a lower molar. He stated that he had been to three other dentists and they had not been able to help him. The patient insisted on a crown and was convinced that it would make his symptoms disappear. The dentist performed an exam and took radiographs of the tooth in question. Based on her findings, the dentist recommended a root canal. Due to calcification and curvature at the apex, she referred the patient to an endodontist. The patient took the referral slip and left the office.

A few months later, the patient returned to the office with a report from a different endodontist. The report indicated that the tooth was ready to be restored. The dentist did not have a previous working relationship with the other endodontist, but had heard from colleagues in the community that this endodontist was known for questionable work and an unwillingness to work collaboratively with other providers.

The patient was adamant about getting the crown done without any further delay. The dentist took a radiograph to assess the status of the root canal treatment. To her surprise, the radiograph revealed a slight overfill. The patient expressed his relief at finally being pain-free and shared that he believed the endodontist he chose did a great job.

The dentist chose not to discuss her findings with the patient, nor did she attempt to reach out to the endodontist to discuss her concerns, as she assumed he would not be willing to speak with her. Because the patient was not experiencing any symptoms and the specialist’s report indicated that the tooth was ready to be restored, she proceeded with preparing the tooth for a crown, although she had concerns about the presence of the overfill.

The patient returned two weeks later to have the permanent restoration delivered. The following day, the office received a call from the patient reporting discomfort with his new crown and feeling that the crown was high. He was seen the same day for an occlusal adjustment. The patient returned for subsequent occlusal adjustments. After each visit, he left the office happy and free from discomfort.

Approximately two weeks after that, the patient returned, frustrated, stating he had been in so much pain that he had to go back to the endodontist. The endodontist told him that the pain was coming from the ill-fitting crown and advised him to go back the dentist to have it redone. The dentist was surprised by the criticism of her treatment from the endodontist given the fact that the root canal he had performed was of poor quality.

The dentist tried to adjust the crown once more, but ended up adjusting off an excessive amount of the porcelain layer. She informed the patient and offered to remake the crown at no additional charge. The patient was annoyed but hesitantly agreed. The dentist removed the crown to take a new impression for a replacement crown.

The patient continued having symptoms for the next few weeks. He canceled his appointment to have the permanent restoration delivered and demanded a refund. He stated the he had gone back to the endodontist who referred him to another dentist to remake the crown. Regretting her decision to allow the patient to dictate treatment in the first place, the dentist agreed to provide the patient with a refund.

Senior TDIC Risk Management Analyst Taiba Solaiman says this case demonstrates the necessity for dentists to inform patients of their findings, regardless of how awkward or uncomfortable it may be. Dentists have an ethical responsibility to be upfront about their patient’s oral health and should feel empowered to provide their professional opinions in an honest manner. That said, dentists must be sure to remain objective. They should avoid finger-pointing and disparaging comments when referring to another dentist’s work.

“While these comments may seem innocent, they can aggravate a patient who may already be emotionally charged,” Solaiman said.

The ADA’s “Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct” states: “Patients are dependent on the expertise of dentists to know their oral health status. Therefore, when informing a patient of the status of his or her oral health, the dentist should exercise care that the comments made are truthful, informed and justifiable …. A difference of opinion as to preferred treatment should not be communicated to the patient in a manner which would unjustly imply mistreatment. There will necessarily be cases where it will be difficult to determine whether the comments made are justifiable. Therefore, this section is phrased to address the discretion of dentists and advises against unknowing or unjustifiable disparaging statements against another dentist.”

Before making a determination, it is advised to contact the previous treating dentist, with the patient’s permission, to determine under what circumstances and conditions the treatment was performed.

When you discuss another dentist’s treatment with your patient, be sure the comments are justifiable and based on objective facts and not merely a difference of opinion. Presenting your findings without bias or undue criticism maintains the integrity of your profession and ensures you’re taking the right steps in protecting your patients’ oral health.

TDIC’s Risk Management Advice Line is a benefit of CDA membership. If you need to schedule a confidential consultation with an experienced risk management analyst, visit tdicinsurance.com/RMconsult or call 800.733.0633.

Reprinted from the April 2019 issue of the CDA Journal.


Topics: Protection, TDIC

Related Items

Of the nearly 3,500 professional liability claims The Dentists Insurance Company addressed between 2012 and 2017, many could have been avoided or mitigated had the dentist been more cautious about choosing which patients to accept into care. “Being selective in the patients you see goes a long way in avoiding trouble down the road,” said Taiba Solaiman, senior TDIC Risk Management analyst.

Some dentists agree to trade their work for other professional services or items of value. Bartering is nothing new; it was the only method for exchanging goods and services until hard currency became the norm thousands of years ago. But for dentists, bartering can lay the groundwork for a liability claim should things not go as planned. TDIC reports a case in which a dentist bartered with a patient for landscaping services in exchange for full-mouth reconstruction.

Topics
Top