{ risk management } The Medical Protective Company Subjective Criticism of
Other Dentists’ Work Increases Liability and Harms the Profession
e.g., “Well, I don’t think I would have done it that way.” Or, it might be expressed as explicit criticism—e.g., “Who did that to you?”
A
This behavior also may occur when staff members use questionable “marketing” techniques to build patient confidence—e.g., “It isn’t sur- prising that you’ve chosen our clinic. We treat a lot of Dr. X’s patients when they get tired of his mistakes.” Finally, this behavior may occur when the patient directly asks for an evaluation of dental work, with the goal of determining whether the previous doctor was negligent.
Regardless of the dentist’s motives or the patient’s treatment needs, each dentist should be prepared to address these concerns with re- spect for the patient, for the colleague and for the profession.
DIFFERING OPINIONS
More than one approach may be acceptable when addressing a pa- tient’s clinical issues. For this reason, different schools of thought on a particular condition might be equally valid, although most doctors will have a personal preference. Disagreement with another doctor’s treatment plan, by itself, does not mean that the work was negligent.
A BAD OUTCOME DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN NEGLIGENCE
Numerous factors can affect the outcome of a dental procedure. Although the clinical decisions and skills of the doctor are essential to patient safety and satisfaction, other variables also can play an im- portant role. For example, a patient’s refusal of a preferred treatment option might result in a secondary treatment option than has less desirable outcomes.
Review of dental malpractice claims shows that the original practitio- ners may actually have agreed with the opinions of their critics. For example, in one case, a dentist examined a new patient and criticized the work done by another doctor, telling the patient that he should have been offered an implant rather than a partial denture. Upon hearing this opinion, the patient wrote a scathing letter to the doctor
who had done the work, demanding a full refund and threatening to report him to the state dental board.
The first doctor replied with his own angry letter, including copies of his notes in which he or his staff had documented numerous in- stances of the patient’s noncompliance. Once the two doctors finally conferred, it was clear that the first doctor had offered implants as a treatment option on more than one occasion, but the patient had refused.
Review of malpractice claims also shows that, in many instances, patients are either forgetful or unwilling to accurately remember the course of their previous care.
Of course, every dentist knows that patients’ financial concerns often are the final determinant in a treatment plan. Generally, patients are more likely to elect high-end dental procedures when a comprehen- sive dental health insurance plan will help defray the cost of the work. That same patient, having to pay for the work out of pocket, will often seek a less expensive option—even when the long-term results may prove less effective and surpass the cost of the original proposal.
continued page 24 22 focus | NOV/DEC 2015 | ISSUE 6
common trigger for dental malpractice claims is criticism of the work done by another dentist. This behavior occurs in a variety of clinical interactions. It may take the form of implicit commentary on a patient’s previous treatment—
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56