↓ Skip to main content

Inadequate record keeping by dental practitioners

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Dental Journal, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inadequate record keeping by dental practitioners
Published in
Australian Dental Journal, November 2015
DOI 10.1111/adj.12258
Pubmed ID
Authors

L F Brown

Abstract

When a dental practitioner is brought before a disciplinary body, a common finding is that the dental records were poorly kept and inadequate to establish issues of consent for treatment or the nature of the treatment undertaken. Often, this finding may be incidental to the actual issue that brought the practitioner before a regulatory body or the Courts. This paper examined recent cases reported in the State of Victoria that have involved dental practitioners, specifically seeking those cases where the record keeping was found to be inadequate. It looked at the rulings of these cases with regards to orders made in respect to record keeping. Complaints and notifications specific to dental record keeping accounted for less than 2 per cent of formal complaints. And yet, up to 75 per cent of recent cases have made a finding of unprofessional conduct against a dental practitioner on the basis of inadequate record keeping, most often in combination with other breaches of conduct. Adherence to the traditional format of hand writing or typing entries into patient records may be part of the problem. Newer technologies such as digital intraoral and extraoral photography and audio-recording of patient interactions may offer a solution to the problems of record keeping. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 4 6%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 26 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 28 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Australian Dental Journal
#468
of 768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,852
of 394,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Dental Journal
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 768 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 394,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.