A Study Into Malpractices in the Dental Practice in the Town Of Plovdiv – Bulgaria Over A 5-Year Period
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12974/2311-8695.2017.05.02.5Keywords:
Error, dental practice, malpractice, register.Abstract
In their work, dentists sometimes allow malpractices to occur. The aim of this study is to investigate the nature of the “adverse consequences” that may serve as grounds for claims from patients to the Professional Ethics Commission (PEC) and the Regional College (RC) of the Bulgarian Dental Association (BDA) in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Material and methods: The documental method has been applied in investigating retrospectively 42 claims from patients to PEC-Plovdiv, filed in the period from 2011 to 2016, and the findings have been compared to those of similar investigations in Tehran and Turkey. Results and discussion: After an in-depth analysis, it was established that the actions that had resulted in claims filed with PEC-Plovdiv, were ‘errors’ in: prosthetics – 34%; surgical treatment – 6%; infringement of the rights of the patient (mostly – administered treatment without the informed consent of the patient) – 10%; mounting implants – 50% (prostheses and surgical treatment as part of implantology are also included here). According to foreign publications, errors in prostheses and surgical interventions are the most common. The same errors have been found to be the most common in Plovdiv, too, in addition to errors in implantology. In Bulgaria, as well as in many other countries, there is no register of dental malpractices. Conclusion: The adverse consequences of dental treatment have been established to be of the same origin in the 3 surveyed regions. The safety strategies are designed to prevent unintentional injuries to the patient.
References
Angela Yu, Kelsey F, Chainani N, Fontana G and Darzi A. Patient safety 2030. London, UK: NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, 2016.
Perea-Pérez B, Santiago-Sáez A, Garcia-Marin F, et al. Patient safety in dentistry: Dental care risk management plan. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011; 16(6): 805-9. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.17085
Leape L and Berwick D. Five years after "To Err is Human" What have we learned? JAMA 2005; 293: 2384-2390. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.19.2384
Angela Yu, Kelsey F, Chainani N, Fontana G and Darzi A. Patient safety 2030. London, UK: NIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre 2016.
Kohn L, Corrigan J and Donaldson M. To Err is Human. Institute of Мedicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America Washigton, (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. https://doi.org/10.17226/9728
Perea-Pérez B, Labajo-González E, Acosta-Gío E, et al. Eleven Basic Procedures/Practices for Dental Patient Safety. J Patient Saf Lippincott Williams and Wilkins 2015; 2015.
Pemberton М. Developing patient safety in dentistry; British Dental Journal 2014; 217: 335-337. Published online: 10 October 2014. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.856
Catchpole K, Bell M and Johnson S. Safety in anaesthesia: a study of 12,606 reported incidents from the UK National Reporting and Learning System. Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 340-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05427.x
Hiivala N, Mussalo-Rauhamaa H and Murtomaa H. Patient safety incident prevention and management among Finnish dentists. Acta Odontol Scand 2013; 71: 1663-1670. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2013.797103
Ozdemir M, Saracoglu A and Ozdemir A. Dental malpractice cases in Turkey during 1991-2000. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine 2005; 12(3): 137-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcfm.2005.01.003
Kiani M and Sheikhazadi A. A five-year survey for dental malpractice claims in Tehran, Iran. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 2009; 16(2): 76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2008.08.016
Thusu S, Panesar S and Bed R. Patient safety in dentistry – state of play as revealed by a national database of errors. British Dental Journal 2012; 213: E3. Published online: 10 August 2012. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.669
