search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
RISK MANAGEMENT


Online Social Media Reviews of Dentists: What to Do About Them


by MARC R. LEFFLER, DDS, ESQ. I


n these days of every restaurant, hotel and concert — where you eat, stay, or attend — asking for online reviews of your experiences, it is neither unusual nor surprising for dental offices to do the same. And even when dental offices don’t seek online reviews, that does not stop patients from posting them. But beware of HIPAA constraints before responding, no matter how terrible or how glow- ing that review might be. Not only can an investigation and penalty ensue following an unauthorized disclosure based upon responding to a negative online review, but the same result might come to pass even when responding to positive ratings given online, as counterintuitive as that might seem. Patients “own” their HIPAA rights, so they are free to disclose/post anything they choose about their health, but that disclosure does not then constitute a waiver to allow the dentist to disclose about them about almost anything.


Dentists are not traditional vendors, but instead health professionals who are vested with the obligation of protecting their patients’ privacy, not only ethically, but statutorily as well. As such, dentists must not divulge any information about their patients, absent explicit written authority from the patient or a rule exception, which usually — but not exclusively — involves the sharing of health information among multiple providers who are treating the patient and who have a need to know.


Therefore, it cannot be emphasized enough that, before releasing or disclosing anything about any patient, the dentist must be in


20 focus | WINTER 2024 | ISSUE 4


the government actions in response, might be a source of intra-lawsuit litiga- tion as to whether the issue could be explored in the usual discovery process and whether a jury might be able to be made aware of the events. That is not to say that it is a given that this issue would become a (distracting) part of a trial, but it is a potential unhelpful wrench that can be eliminated with due consideration in advance. Online responses to online stimuli might feel justified at the moment, but silence is often the better approach to take; a patient’s review does not constitute authorization for a response.


possession of a HIPAA-compliant document authorizing the release; in situations where a dentist might believe that sharing medical/ dental information with another provider is warranted, the safest approach is a consul- tation with an attorney familiar with this subject matter. That extra step might be the difference between compliance and a large fine. And even when sharing information appropriately, HIPAA requires the methods for doing so include reasonable protections against the dissemination of that informa- tion to any person or entity other than specifically intended.


It also should be noted that, when situations which trigger online reviews involve claimed negligent treatment which injured the patient, leading to a malpractice lawsuit, the entire set of online events, and potentially


Online platforms have become realities of life, affecting virtually every aspect of our daily activities. For most of those activities, it is perfectly fine to give in to the temptations that set in motion various types of online posts. But doing so in the context of dental practice is entirely different, and it carries with it potential con- sequences that likely do not exist elsewhere. So, taking a step back, before publicly cel- ebrating a patient’s satisfaction or defending a patient’s criticism, is a wise risk manage- ment tool. Finally, dentists ought to be aware that what office staff members post online in the name of the dentist is as though the dentist had personally done it: in this regard, dentists might wish to consider limiting who in the office — with a full understanding of ramifications — has such access to “speak” on the dentist’s behalf.


Marc Leffler is the MedPro Group Dental Risk Solutions Lead and Head of the Dental Advisory Board. Contact him at marc.leffler@medpro.com.


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