Membership information 1800 444 542
Dentolegal advice 1800 444 542

Periodontal monitoring


27 August 2014
Undiagnosed and untreated periodontal disease is one of the fastest growing areas of litigation and complaints in dentistry.

People are living longer, and more people are retaining their teeth into later life. Consequently, the overall potential periodontal risk is rapidly increasing. Most allegations of undiagnosed, untreated and under-treated periodontal disease arise when a patient sees a new dentist for the first time. This may result from the retirement of the patient’s previous dentist, or simply because the dentist has left the practice. Sometimes the patient attends a different dentist in an emergency situation, or following the sale of the practice where they have been treated over many years.

On other occasions, of course, a patient will seek a second opinion because they already have concerns about the treatment being provided for them by their existing dentist.

Allegations
The most common allegation is that the patient was unaware of the presence of periodontal disease, or that the extent and implications of the periodontal problems had not been explained to them. Where there are significant levels of periodontal disease, and one or more teeth have a doubtful or terminal prognosis, the patient may well become very angry, blaming the previous dentist for allowing the periodontal condition to deteriorate under their care. If the condition, along with the treatment options and appropriate advice, is not explained to the patient, the individual may well feel that they have been let down by the professional person they have trusted over many years.

Whether such allegations are made in the form of a complaint, or a claim in negligence, two questions always arise:

  • Did the dentist in question properly diagnose, treat and monitor the periodontal disease?
  • Did the critical discussions and explanations occur between the dentist and the patient?

It is not unusual for there to be differences of opinion and recollection between the patient, and the dentist, as to what did (or didn’t) happen. As a result, attention often focuses upon the clinical records and what they do (or do not) contain, in order to establish which version of events is better supported by the contemporaneous notes.

Clinical audit

Carry out the following simple audit on the dental records of the next 10 patients that you see either with either moderate or significant levels of periodontal disease. Are there one or more dated entries confirming each of these 16 key landmarks?

  1. A written medical history has been taken, and updated at regular intervals. This includes a review of any medication taken by the patient
  2. Appropriate screening (for example, BPE score, do the patient’s gums bleed on brushing?) and follow-up investigation (for example, x-rays) has been carried out.
  3. A diagnosis of periodontal disease has been made.
  4. The patient has been informed of the presence of the disease.
  5. The patient has been given specific information regarding the site(s) and severity generally, and in respect of any specific teeth which have an unfavourable prognosis.
  6. Some kind of measurement of the site(s) and severity of the disease has been made (this may range from BPE scores, to more detailed probing depth recordings and might include notes of bleeding points, mobility, and pathological changes affecting individual teeth).
  7. Known risk factors for periodontal disease (especially smoking) have been checked.
  8. Appropriate levels of initial treatment (for example, scaling, root planing) have been carried out, and repeated at suitable intervals.
  9. The patient has received suitable advice and instruction regarding oral hygiene, risk factors (for example, on cessation of smoking), to enable the patient to become personally involved in the control of their periodontal disease.
  10. The tissue response and the patient’s compliance has been checked for and further measurement/monitoring of the progression of the disease has taken place.
  11. The above monitoring has been repeated at appropriate intervals, with any necessary x-rays and other investigations (including questioning the patient as to any areas of bleeding, discomfort, etc).
  12. Any failure on the patient’s part in respect of compliance (oral hygiene,risk factors, attendance, for example) has been brought to the patient’s attention, and the importance stressed.
  13. Where the periodontal disease is particularly severe, and/or has not responded to the advice and treatment provided, the possibility of a referral for specialist advice, or treatment has been considered and discussed with the patient.
  14. If the patient has declined such a referral for any reason, has this been made clear?
  15. Any occasion when the patient has failed to attend appointments, or has cancelled appointments at short notice. This includes occasions when the patient agrees to contact the practice to make further appointments, but fails to do so, or when the patient does not respond to reminders or recall letters.
  16. Any occasion when the patient has declined the treatment recommended for them (for example, a referral to a dental hygienist, or the provision of treatment to address any occlusal imbalance).
Scoring
Score Level of detail
0 If the records contain no reference at all to the landmark in question.
1 If the records contain an entry which, while not optimal in terms of its detail, still suggests that the landmark had been identified.
2 If the records contain a specific dated entry, clearly identifying the landmark in question.

This provides a possible (maximum) score of 32 per record card, or 320 for the sample of 10 patients, although not all of the ‘landmarks’ will apply in every case. Where possible, ask a colleague to review your records and repeat the exercise to standardise your approach to the scoring system.

Action and follow-up

Identify any gaps or weaknesses in your record keeping, and involve other team members in these discussions. Set clear objectives for improving your record keeping, preferably enlisting the help of these other members of your team. For example:

  • The receptionist routinely checks that there is a recently updated, written medical history.
  • The receptionist records every broken and cancelled appointment and understands the importance of this. The dental nurse or assistant provides a backup, ensuring that key conversations, explanations and warnings are always fully recorded.
  • The hygienist identifies and fills any gaps in the record keeping (risk factors, oral hygiene instruction, treatment provided, patient non-compliance, etc).

Repeat the exercise above after allowing sufficient time to develop consistent, reproducible routines.

Summary

In many cases, the levels of periodontal disease present in a patient’s mouth are due to factors beyond the dentist’s control, and do not reflect any fault whatsoever on the part of the dentist. However, it is made much easier to demonstrate this fact if the records contain the entries listed above.

2 comments
  • By Hip on 24 April 2016 05:49 After I caught a respiratory virus (most likely coxsackievirus B4, by my viral blood tests) which triggered a number of health problems in me, I noticed that I suddenly developed receding gums (periodontal disease). Prior to catching that virus, my gums had always been pink and healthy.As this coxsackievirus spread to friends and family, it also caused several of these people to developed sudden onset periodontal disease (quite a few people commented that their gums suddenly went downhill).I am not sure exactly of the mechanism by which coxsackievirus B could cause periodontitis, but my guess is that it may involve the connective tissue-destroying enzyme MMP-9, which has been shown to be elevated in coxsackievirus B infections.Note that in chronic infections, coxsackievirus B is hard to detect, and usually it is only the plaque reduction neutralization blood test (no connection to dental plaque) that is sensitive enough to reveal these chronic infections.
  • By M. Christine Barrett on 02 August 2015 02:39

    I have found in general Practice that periodontal disease is by far the most prevalent and it takes a very special skill-set to adequately motivate and change a patient's attitude towards their dentition.

    Quite often, a patient may be adequately motivated in the initial stages, but invariably, this will drop off over the course of time, to an improved standard of oral hygiene to previously, but still inadequate. So much so, the periodontal disease still progresses but at a slower rate than previously.

    I find keeping patients motivated, to maintain a satisfactory level of oral hygiene at all times, is a huge challenge to the General Practitioner!

    Leave a comment

    © 2019 The Medical Protection Society Limited

    DPL Australia Pty Ltd (“DPLA”) is registered in Australia with ABN 24 092 695 933. Dental Protection Limited (“DPL”) is registered in England (No. 2374160) and along with DPLA is part of the Medical Protection Society Limited (“MPS”) group of companies. MPS is registered in England (No. 00036142). Both DPL and MPS have their registered office at Level 19, The Shard, 32 London Bridge Street, London, SE1 9SG. DPL serves and supports the dental members of MPS. All the benefits of MPS membership are discretionary, as set out in MPS’s Memorandum and Articles of Association. “Dental Protection member” in Australia means a non-indemnity dental member of MPS. Dental Protection members may hold membership independently or in conjunction with membership of the Australian Dental Association (W.A. Branch) Inc. (“ADA WA”).

    Dental Protection members who hold membership independently need to apply for, and where applicable maintain, an individual Dental Indemnity Policy underwritten by MDA National Insurance Pty Ltd (“MDA”), ABN 56 058 271 417, AFS Licence No. 238073. DPLA is a Corporate Authorised Representative of MDA with CAR No. 326134. For such Dental Protection members, by agreement with MDA, DPLA provides point-of-contact member services, case management and colleague-to-colleague support.

    Dental Protection members who are also ADA WA members need to apply for, and where applicable maintain, an individual Dental Indemnity Policy underwritten by MDA, which is available in accordance with the provisions of ADA WA membership.

    None of ADA WA, DPL, DPLA and MPS are insurance companies. Dental Protection® is a registered trademark of MPS.