dc.contributor.author | Naidoo, Sudeshni | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-05-30T15:04:33Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-05-30T15:04:33Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Naidoo, S. (2014). Vicarious liability in private and public dental clinics. South African Dental Journal, 69 (3): 130 - 131 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1029-4864 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10566/2229 | |
dc.description.abstract | A 25 year-old patient attended the clinic to have four teeth
extracted under conscious sedation. Following a thorough
examination and medical history it was found that she had a
heart murmur. The dentist prescribed an antibiotic to be taken
one hour prior to the dental treatment. The patient reported
that she was allergic to penicillin and this was confirmed on
her medical history chart. Consequently, a prescription was
given for a 3g sachet of erythromycin as an oral suspension.
The following day, the patient went to the pharmacy to obtain
her medication, but was informed that they only had amoxycillin
available in 3g sachets. The pharmacist telephoned the
dental clinic to request permission from the dentist to change
the prescription to amoxycillin, and as the dentist was unavailable,
a staff member gave him the permission to issue the
amoxycillin. When the patient came to collect the prescription
she was not informed that it had been changed and assumed
that her prescription did not contain penicillin.
Subsequently, the patient attended for dental treatment carried
out and informed the dental assistant that after taking
her antibiotic she was feeling unwell. Treatment was to be
carried out under sedation and the anaesthetist, realising that
the patient was allergic to penicillin and had taken amoxycillin,
administered antihistamine. No treatment was carried out at
that appointment and the patient was discharged home by
the anaesthetist when he felt that she was well enough and
in no medical danger. However, when the patient returned
home, she became unwell, suffered a fall and sustained an
injury to her right hand. The dentist admitted that there had
been a lack of communication between the dental surgery
and the pharmacy and that as a result, amoxycillin had been
prescribed despite the fact that the patient was allergic to it.
Unfortunately the pharmacist was unable to identify the member
of staff to whom he had spoken and who had given him
permission to change the prescription. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | South African Dental Association | en_US |
dc.rights.uri | This file may be freely used for educational uses. No commercial reproduction or distribution of this file is permitted without written permission of the South African Dental Association (SADA). Note that the SADA retains all intellectual property rights in the article. | |
dc.source.uri | http://reference.sabinet.co.za/document/EJC151908 | |
dc.subject | Ethics | en_US |
dc.subject | Prescription | en_US |
dc.subject | Antibiotic | en_US |
dc.subject | Allergic reaction | en_US |
dc.title | Vicarious liability in private and public dental clinics | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.privacy.showsubmitter | FALSE | |
dc.status.ispeerreviewed | TRUE | |
dc.description.accreditation | DHET | en_US |