A 15-year-old books herself in, and her mother wants the file
Hine, aged 15 years and 8 months, books herself into the community oral health clinic where you practise as a dental hygienist. She arrives with her 19-year-old cousin. Hine has generalised marginal gingivitis, a BPE of 2, 2, 1, heavy extrinsic staining and no restorations. She tells you she has vaped daily for eight months and does not want her mother told, because her mother is strongly anti-vaping and she fears the whanau fallout. She is articulate, explains the treatment you propose in her own words, and asks to book a follow-up in six weeks. Two days later her mother telephones, identifies herself, and demands everything in Hine's file, including what Hine said about vaping, saying she pays the bills and Hine is a minor. Reception has already confirmed to the mother that Hine attended. Your notes record Hine's request for confidentiality.
1. Can Hine consent to the scaling and polishing herself? Set out the framework you would apply, the decision you would reach, and what you would record.
Read the worked answer
Framework. Under the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights, services may be provided only with informed choice and informed consent (right 7), and the consumer is entitled to the information a reasonable consumer would need (right 6), delivered in a form they can understand (right 5). The Code presumes a consumer aged 16 or over to be competent, but being under 16 does not make Hine incompetent. Competence is a functional test tied to the particular decision, not a birthday.
Applying the test. Look for whether Hine can understand what scaling and polishing involves and why it is being done; grasp the alternatives, including doing nothing, and the consequences; retain and weigh that information; and communicate a clear choice. On the description given she does all four, and this is a low-risk, reversible, preventive procedure. Her consent is sufficient.
Recording. Write a short capacity assessment rather than the word 'consented': the information you gave, her explanation back to you, the choice she made, and the fact you encouraged her to involve her mother or another support person without making that a condition of care.
Two traps. First, do not trade treatment for information about vaping, and do not refuse care because she vapes. Vaping is relevant to her gingival health and merits a brief, non-judgemental conversation, but it is not a precondition for a scale. Second, guardianship under the Care of Children Act does not mean every routine decision must go through a guardian. If the treatment were more invasive, or if you doubted her competence, you would stop, seek advice and involve the person entitled to consent on her behalf.
2. How do you respond to the mother's request, and what do you do about the fact that reception has already told her Hine attended?
Read the worked answer
Do not answer on the phone. Verify who you are speaking to, take a contact number, and say you will respond after checking the practice's process. Nothing about the clinical record, the vaping or the appointment content goes out in that call.
The legal frame. The Privacy Act 2020 and the Health Information Privacy Code 2020 govern this. Rule 6 gives an individual a right of access to their own health information; rule 11 limits disclosure. A parent is not automatically entitled to a competent adolescent's health information, even if they pay. Where Hine has capacity, her wishes and her interests are the starting point, and a guardian's request is a request made on her behalf - it needs to be weighed, not simply granted. The privacy officer or clinical lead should make the decision, not reception.
The practical path. Ask Hine whether she consents to any information being shared, and what she would be comfortable with; offer to support her to tell her mother herself. If the mother's request is declined, explain the decision without disclosing anything.
The disclosure that has already happened. Confirming attendance is a privacy breach. Tell Hine what happened, apologise, record it in the incident register, review how reception handles enquiries, and consider whether it is serious enough to notify the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, which requires notification of serious breaches. Remind the mother of the complaints process (right 10) rather than becoming defensive - a well-handled complaint is less likely to become a Health and Disability Commissioner matter.
3. What do you say to Hine about vaping, and how do cultural safety and health promotion principles shape that conversation?
Read the worked answer
What the evidence supports. Vaping is considerably less harmful than smoking but is not risk-free, and it is not recommended for people who have never smoked, particularly young people. Nicotine exposure, aerosol irritants and the effect on gingival tissue are all legitimate clinical topics. None of that justifies a lecture.
How to raise it. Ask permission first: 'Is it okay if we talk about the vaping for a minute?' Then use a brief intervention - ask what she knows and what she thinks about it, give short, clear advice, and offer support rather than a warning. Ask how important quitting is to her and how confident she feels, and work from her answer.
Where to refer. In New Zealand, Quitline (0800 778 778) and its text and phone support are available to young people, and her GP or school health service are options. Be honest that the choice is hers and that you will keep seeing her either way.
Cultural safety. Reflect on your own reaction to a 15-year-old who vapes and on any assumption that her mother's view should override hers. Cultural safety means recognising that whanau is central to many young people's wellbeing, and that Hine gets to decide how and when her family is involved. Use the hui process as a guide: connect as people before the clinical kaupapa, offer choices, and do not treat her as a problem to be managed.
Health promotion. The goal is a young person who trusts the clinic and comes back. That is worth more over her lifetime than winning one argument about a vape.