Q&A -Top 5 clinico-legal issues: Dental

As far as I know AHPRA doesn’t “certify “ or “ accredit ” courses so they will allow you to do any course, but then if there is a CPD audit, at that stage AHPRA decides on the merits or otherwise of the course. Some course providers do go to the effort of contacting AHPRA and obtaining an “approval” prior to the course being run which generally means that a certain number of CPD hours are gained.

Not to MIPS as your indemnity provider. However, if records are to be transferred to other sources then a formal consent is required.

If, by “treatment”, you mean other treatment beyond a scale and clean and examination, then the person responsible for providing that other treatment is the person who should explain the procedure and obtain the patient’s consent. That would be the responsibility of the treating dentist in the situation outlined, not the OHT.

Obturation is not the keystone of endodontics. Debridement is the critical element. If the canal was correctly debrided to the appropriate length then the obturation length is a secondary consideration. I would simply review the tooth as normal at periodic review appointments if the patient is unwilling to have the obturation improved/corrected.

As far as I am aware AHPRA may caution/reprimand of fine the practitioner if a criminal history isn’t disclosed but unless the history involved fairly serious offences then I would think things like imposing conditions/suspension etc. would be rare.

Short answer… no. If the employee isn’t that provider then they cannot use your provider number. As for the complaint and “temporarily sharing” a provider number… no. There is no “sharing” of provider numbers. It would be akin to “sharing” your driver’s licence with someone else.

In this question we presumed SFA stood for Service and Facility Agreement. You may need to obtain independent legal advice if your employer requires you to sign this. In these circumstances employers would normally need to demonstrate that a restructure from having staff as ‘employees’ to an ‘SFA’ had merit and was not simply a tax dodge, otherwise the ATO may impose penalties. This is not an area where MIPS has expertise and you may need to see independent legal advice. We note there is discussion online about this topic: http://www.independentdentist.com.au/tax-man-cometh-contractor-arrangements-sights-2/

OHT is a very small percentage. Probably less than 5% of dental complaints and the complaints are the same as dentists, eg poor communication, not obtaining consent, working outside your scope of practice.

For any transfer of records one should obtain consent. I would have thought that generally if one is either referring the patient to a specialist or obtaining a specialist opinion the patient would be told about this and agree to it, plus the need to transfer records (eg Radiographs) so the specialist is familiar with the case.

Very serious. If you believe the treatment the patient wants is either inappropriate or unreasonable or, for example, has a limited prognosis, then simply recording this will not prevent a problem if the patient initiates a complaint. If as a dentist you feel the treatment isn’t in the best interest of the patient then do not proceed with the treatment. If it goes wrong the patient will invariably claim they weren’t informed and didn’t properly consent… “If I knew this would be the result I’d have never started the treatment”.

No. Some practitioners refer all endo cases to an endodontist simply because they don’t like doing endo. Often the reason for referral is indeed that the case is difficult… calcified canals, curved canals etc… and it is the intelligent practitioner who recognises the potential difficulty in advance and refers. The practitioner who gets into trouble is the one who decides to ‘give it a try’ and who, on reflection, should have recognised the difficulties of the case not even started treatment, but referred straight up.

A refund is done with no admission of liability, but as a genuine attempt to resolve a complaint. However, giving a refund does not stop the patient from exercising their right to complain… paying money does not waive one’s rights. The aim of a refund is to rapidly defuse a complaint. It is not a concept of paying money to prevent a complaint to, for example, AHPRA.

No. Consent is a process, not a piece of paper and you can record consent in your health records even where the consent was obtained verbally.

This is basic prosthodontics. Most cementation agents are soluble in the oral environment. So any cement ‘seal’ will only be temporary. The bottom line is that the impression was inadequate and the crown should be completely remade.

If the patient is disagreeable and will not listen or agree to your recommended treatment, then your only option is to record this in your notes. If you can obtain a written refusal of treatment, this may be a worthwhile document but it is still likely that your records would still be a key if any legal action occurred. If the health records clearly demonstrate that the proposed treatment, risks and likely outcome were communicated to the patient and they still refused, then this would likely reflect well on you.