Panel hearing summary 2012.0157

Decision of the Dental Board of Australia

Performance and Professional Standards Panel

Jurisdiction: Victoria

Date of Hearing: 29 October 2012

Date of Decision: 13 November 2012

Classification of Notification:

Health record – Inadequate or inaccurate or misleading

Allegations

It was alleged that the dentist behaved in a way that constituted unsatisfactory professional performance under section 191(1)(b)(i) of the National Law in that they:

1. failed to keep adequate records, specifically, failed to record:
   1. a prescription
   2. a treatment plan or discussion of treatment options
   3. x-ray results and
   4. treatment provided to a patient
   5. the administration of local anaesthetic
2. failed to adequately manage the process of making a patient’s dentures.

Finding

The panel found that the dentist had behaved in a way that constituted unsatisfactory professional performance by failing to keep adequate records. The dentist admitted that they did not record a prescription, a treatment plan or discussion of treatment options and x-ray results in their records as alleged. The panel found on the evidence that the dentist did not record treatment provided to the patient.

However, the panel did not find that the dentist failed to record the administration of local anaesthetic. The records did not record the administration of local anaesthetic because anaesthetic was actually never given.

The panel also found that the dentist had not failed to adequately manage the process of making the patient’s dentures. It accepted that it was difficult to fit dentures in this case because of the patient’s dental problems and that the dentist had appropriately made themselves available on a regular basis for adjustments.

Determination

The panel reprimanded the dentist for not recording a prescription or treatment plan and failing to record the discussion of treatment options. The panel noted that the reprimand was appropriate as a tribunal had found in a previous case concerning the dentist that their record keeping was inadequate and they had again failed to maintain adequate records.

The panel also imposed conditions on the dentist’s registration requiring them to complete further education in record keeping at their own cost, with this condition to be reviewed within nine months.