The Complaint About a Missed Referral
A patient files a complaint alleging that Dr. Reyes failed to refer a persistent oral lesion for biopsy. The chart shows the lesion was noted at a recall visit eight months ago, described as "white patch, buccal mucosa, watch," with no documented discussion of referral and no follow-up note. The patient says she was never told to return sooner. Dr. Reyes tells the investigator the patient "probably wouldn't have gone anyway" and asks whether he can add an addendum to the chart now explaining that he verbally recommended a biopsy. The board has requested records, and the patient has also posted a negative review online.
1. How should Dr. Reyes handle the chart and the request to add a late addendum?
Read the worked answer
He may add a clearly dated addendum describing what he recalls, but he must not alter or backdate the original entry. The addendum should be labeled as a later addition with the date it was written, and it cannot create the appearance that the original record contained information it did not. If his recollection is genuinely that he verbally recommended biopsy, he should say so and explain the absence of documentation, but he should not fabricate a contemporaneous note. The original entry and any addendum must be produced to the board; withholding or altering records in response to an investigation is itself a serious violation.
2. What standard of care issues does the "watch" entry raise?
Read the worked answer
A persistent white patch is a lesion that warrants evaluation for malignancy, typically referral for biopsy or specialist assessment rather than passive observation without a defined follow-up interval. The record lacks documented patient education, a follow-up schedule, or a referral, and the patient says she was not told to return. The "she wouldn't have gone anyway" rationale is not a defense; the dentist's duty is to recommend and document appropriate care, and to document the patient's informed refusal if she declines. The absence of any follow-up note over eight months compounds the concern.
3. How should he respond to the online review and the board inquiry?
Read the worked answer
He should not respond to the review with any patient-identifying information, which would risk a privacy violation, and should avoid arguing the clinical details publicly. For the board, he should cooperate fully, provide complete records including the addendum, and avoid contacting the patient in a way that could be seen as intimidating or as an attempt to influence her complaint. A measured, factual response through the proper channel-ideally with advice from a licensure attorney-is appropriate. Defensiveness or retaliatory communication tends to worsen disciplinary outcomes.