A practitioner conducted an extraction of the claimant’s 16 after the claimant presented as an emergency appointment with pain and a previous history of root canal treatment.
The patient elected to proceed with the extraction by the insured and was warned of the risk of OAC. The patient developed an OAC after the extraction and made a complaint to OHO which was subsequently referred to Ahpra.
The issue for consideration by Ahpra was whether the insured’s knowledge, skill or judgment possessed or care exercised in undertaking an extraction of the claimant’s tooth 16 was below the standard reasonably expected in light of the claimant experiencing an OAC.
The insured provided submissions to Ahpra attaching the claimant’s clinical records, including radiographs, treatment plan and critically a signed consent to the treatment.
Having considered all the information, Ahpra ultimately informed the practitioner of its decision to take no further action. Ahpra placed particular reliance on the practitioner’s submissions, dental records confirming the practitioner utilised radiographs to make an appropriate diagnosis and plan the treatment, discussed other options with the claimant and obtained verbal and written consent including noting the risk of an OAC developing.
The whole process from the complaint being made to Ahpra’s decision took nine months.
One important point on this case which made a significant difference is the submissions provided to Ahpra on behalf of the practitioner were of high quality in that they contained evidence of verbal and written consent, dental records confirming that the treatment plan was reasonable and the treatment plan was explained to the patient.
The benefit of record keeping is critical when it comes to being in the best position possible to respond to OHO and Ahpra complaints.