September 17, 2021

Glasgow’s health chiefs have apologized for ‘mixing’ the baby’s teeth.

Health The chiefs apologized when the child’s teeth were extracted as a result of the adulteration, which did not fully understand the young man’s parents.

Doctors at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Glasgow Hub found the need for “pearl whitening” to be “clearly stated” before a procedure.

The child had originally undergone dental surgery to have two different teeth extracted, but it was decided to have another tooth extracted instead.

Read more: Nicola Sturgeon will enforce vaccine certificates for nightclubs and live events.

Although it was explained to the teen’s parents at the time, a guard ordered that “complex information” not be given in a way that they could understand.

One of the child’s parents, known only as C, complained to the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman, who was found in his favor.

In a report, the watchdog said: “C complained that there was a mistake in the dental surgery of her child (A) at the Royal Hospital for Children.

“An orthodontist (a medical professional dealing with the prevention and correction of illegal teeth) asked me to remove two teeth.

C expressed concern that he had removed the wrong tooth (A’s front tooth) and left out the two teeth he needed to remove.

The board said its oral and maxillofacial surgery clinicians (OMFS, Oral and Facial Diseases and Wound Treatment Specialists) have reviewed the actual AK treatment plan.

The board explained that their OMFS clinician had tried to contact an orthodontist to explain that A’s original treatment plan was not medically feasible.

“We consulted independently with an OMFS consultant. We found that the AK treatment plan should not have been changed without consulting the referring orthodontist and agreeing to the changes with them.

Glasgow Times: The operation was performed at the Royal Children's Hospital.The procedure was performed at the Royal Children’s Hospital.

“We found that the clinical justification for changing the treatment plan for A was not clearly recorded. We also found that the changes were not clearly communicated to C and A in a way that they could understand. Confirmed C’s complaint.

A spokesman for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said: “Although we cannot comment on any individual patient, we are sorry for any inconvenience caused to the patient and his family.

“The details of this incident have been the subject of an internal, clinical review and we have already taken steps to learn from this patient’s experience.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *