ADVICE FACEBOOK RANT


BACKGROUND A patient – Mr M – who has in the past verbally complained about the “rude attitude” of reception staff at his village GP surgery has now posted an extended ‘rant’ on Facebook. The practice disputes the version of the events described and is concerned by the public nature of the complaint on social media. It contacts MDDUS for advice on how to address the matter.


ANALYSIS/OUTCOME An MDDUS adviser suggests that the practice write to the patient in regard to the Facebook post and acknowledge his continued dissatisfaction and suggest that the practice would be happy to provide a formal written complaint response. It would be reasonable to request that Mr M remove the post and remind him that complaints are best dealt with via the formal practice complaints procedure (as set out on the surgery website). The letter could also include an offer to meet with Mr M to discuss his concerns. The practice should also consider


undertaking its own internal review of the complaint and the outcome could be reported back to the patient (if he wishes). Any response should include a reminder that Mr M is free to escalate the complaint for review to the ombudsman (provide


contact details) with no impact on his ongoing care at the practice . Should Mr M refuse to remove his post


the practice has the option to post a “response” on its own Facebook page highlighting that it has a formal complaints policy and inviting any person with a concern to contact the practice directly. This post must be “generic” – without divulging any specific patient or other information that might risk breaching confidentiality. The practice could also consider taking


further legal advice in regard to potential defamation. However, advice on this matter would be beyond the scope of expertise and support from MDDUS. The GMC also provides extensive


guidance to doctors with regard to good medical practice and the use of social media (tinyurl.com/ydab9wxo).


KEY POINTS ●Ensure patients are aware of formal practice complaints procedures. ●Do not respond to complaints via social media if there is any risk of breaching patient confidentially.


COMPLAINT ACID BURN


BACKGROUND A young patient – Max – attends the dental surgery after school for treatment to fissure seal his permanent molars. Not long after leaving the surgery with his mother Max returns and reports to the receptionist that he feels a burning pain just under his lower lip. This is evidenced by a florid red mark. Max’s mother asks to see the dentist


– Dr W – who first suggests that it might be an allergic reaction to his latex gloves. This is discounted as Max has never experienced any such allergy before. Dr W then speculates it might possibly be due to the etching gel (orthophosphoric acid) used in the fissure sealant procedure. Max leaves the surgery and attends A&E.


Here the attending physician confirms that the lesion appears to be a chemical burn


rather than contact dermatitis. He speculates that the shape suggests the chemical agent may have rubbed off the dentist’s glove. The next day the practice receives a letter


of complaint from Max’s parents demanding an explanation of how the incident occurred and why Dr W tried to claim it was an allergic reaction.


ANALYSIS/OUTCOME An MDDUS adviser assists Dr W in drafting a letter of response. The dentist first expresses regret for the incident and acknowledges that the etching gel was the likely cause of the lesion. He promises to review his procedures in the use of fissure sealant and necessary first aid measures to ensure such incidents are in future dealt with immediately. The practice will also


undertake a significant event analysis to explore further how similar incidents can be prevented in future. The parents acknowledge Dr W’s


explanation and expression of regret. No further action is taken and Max remains a patient at the practice.


KEY POINTS ●Ensure access to and familiarity with COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) safety sheets for chemical products used in the practice. ●Conduct an SEA to ensure (and demonstrate) learning from adverse incidents.


MDDUS INSIGHT / 19


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24