Impaired Partner, Diverted Opioids, and a Child's Bruises
Dr. Raj Patel shares a suite with Dr. Lynn Brooks in Carmel. Over three weeks Dr. Patel has observed Dr. Brooks slurring speech, nodding off during chart review, and asking a hygienist to "hold" two hydrocodone tablets. The hygienist says Dr. Brooks wrote hydrocodone prescriptions in the names of two staff members who never received the medication. Separately, Dr. Brooks's 9-year-old patient presents with bruises on the buttocks and posterior thighs in different stages of healing; the parent says the child "falls a lot." The office manager warns Dr. Patel that reporting either issue will "destroy the practice" and that peer review protects the information. Dr. Patel asks what his legal and ethical obligations are, how to document, and whether he can handle the matters internally.
1. What should Dr. Patel do about Dr. Brooks's apparent impairment and possible drug diversion?
Read the worked answer
Patient safety comes first. Dr. Patel should immediately prevent Dr. Brooks from treating patients or writing prescriptions-by removing him from the clinical schedule, securing controlled substances and prescription pads, and notifying the appropriate practice authority. He should document objective observations: dates, times, slurred speech, nodding off, the hygienist's statement, and the prescriptions written in staff names. He should report the conduct to the Indiana Board of Dentistry and contact the Indiana Professionals Recovery Program to encourage evaluation and treatment. He should not conduct a private investigation, confront Dr. Brooks alone in a way that creates a safety risk, or allow him to "work it out" internally. If patients were exposed to substandard care, the practice should arrange follow-up. Peer review confidentiality may protect certain quality-review communications, but it does not authorize hiding an impaired dentist who poses an ongoing risk.
2. What are Dr. Patel's obligations regarding the child's bruises, and can the office manager's concerns override them?
Read the worked answer
Dentists are mandated reporters of suspected child abuse or neglect in Indiana. Bruises on the buttocks and posterior thighs in different stages of healing, combined with a vague explanation that the child "falls a lot," create reasonable suspicion and require a report to the Indiana Department of Child Services and law enforcement. Dr. Patel does not need proof, does not need to investigate, and should not confront the parent or coach the child. The office manager's fear of ruining the practice is not a legal basis to withhold a mandated report. Dr. Brooks's own impairment does not excuse the child-protection duty; if Dr. Brooks is the treating dentist, Dr. Patel should ensure a report is made and, if necessary, make it himself. The report should be factual and timely. Retaliation against the staff member who raised concerns is inappropriate.
3. How should Dr. Patel document these events, and does peer review confidentiality permit him to keep them internal?
Read the worked answer
He should create a contemporaneous, objective record: what he observed, when, who said what, the prescriptions involved, the child's injuries and statements, and the reports made. He should avoid conclusory labels such as "addict" or "abuser" and should not alter the child's dental chart to insert speculation. Photographs, if taken, should follow practice policy and not delay the report. Peer review confidentiality may apply to certain quality-improvement deliberations, but it does not shield mandated child-abuse reports, Board reporting of dangerous impairment, or the underlying facts. Handling either matter internally would expose patients to continued risk and could itself be unprofessional conduct. Dr. Patel should keep copies of the reports, cooperate with the Board and DCS, and ensure staff know the practice's reporting obligations.