The Condescending Dental Hygienist

ollow instructions. follow format:

• Cover page (Title of the case; your name; date)
• Body of paper:
  • Case Study Summary
  • Answer questions #1; 3-7
  • Each question should be typed out followed by a response to that questioN

• Read the case from the text on page 521 

• Summarize the case 

• Answer questions 1, 3-7 (omit question #2) 

• Write out each question and prepare a detailed response for each question.Be specific and provide examples from the case study, text or other references. 

• Format for paper (adherence to guidelines count for a significant amount in the homework assignment) 

• Cover page (Title of the case; your name; date) 

• Body of paper: 

• Case Study Summary 

• Answer questions #1; 3-7 

• Each question should be typed out followed by a response to that question 

• Please provide a thoughtful narrative with appropriate in text citations. 

• Appropriate APA 6.0 format for in text citations 

• Reference page using APA 6.0 format (included in rubric under adherence to guidelines) 

• Double space your paper 

• Use Times New Roman 12-point font and 1inch margin. 

: CASE STUDY HOMEWORK #4 RUBRIC (100 points) 

A level 

B level 

C level 

D level 

• Adherence to guidelines (assignment requirements) and citations 

• Writing, organization, and proofreading 

• Case Study Summary 

• Content for questions 1; 3-7 (10 points each) 

Thorough and accurate adherence to guidelines; responds to all guidelines; includes all mandatory elements for the assignment; proper citations and complete; correct and placed correctly in text. (15 pts) 

Majority of work displays accurate adherence to guidelines; responds to most guidelines; includes majority of mandatory elements; majority of citations complete, correct and placed correctly in text. (12 pts) 

Some evidence of adherence to guidelines; some presence of mandatory elements; numerous incomplete citations, incorrect and placed incorrectly in text. (10.5 pts) 

Insufficient adherence to guidelines; omits numerous mandatory elements; fails to respond to critical guidelines for content; if evidence offered, poorly cited in terms of completeness, accuracy and placement in text. (9 pts) 

Wide variety of sentence structures; excellent word usage, spelling, grammar, and punctuation; clear evidence of proofreading. (10 pts) 

Good sentence variety; adequate use of wording, spelling, grammar, and punctuation; good evidence of proofreading. (8 pts) 

Inconsistent sentence variety; often inadequate in wording, spelling, grammar, and punctuation; weak evidence of proofreading. (7 pts) 

Writing lacks sentence variety; significant deficiencies in wording, spelling, grammar, and punctuation; lacks evidence of proofreading.(6 pts) 

Excellent, very clear description of the case, paraphrased with appropriate in text citations. (15 pts) 

Good description of the case, paraphrased with proper in text citations. (12 pts) 

Weak description with limited, inconsistent use of in text citations. (10.5 pts) 

Summary lacks appropriate details and in text citations. (9 pts) 

Thorough, specific, accurate responses to questions demonstrating critical thinking and use of principles discussed in the text and lectures; evidence to support responses. (60 pts) 

Good discussion and responses to questions; demonstrating critical thinking and use of principles discussed in the text and lecture; with evidence of sources used to support responses. (48 pts) 

Weak responses to questions and discussion; weak evidence of critical thinking with insufficient evidence of sources used to support responses. (42 pts) 

Discussion and responses to questions do not demonstrate an understanding of the concepts; lacks critical thinking and no evidence of source consulted to support responses. (36 pts) 

Grades and point ranges:A: 90-100 pointsB: 80-89 pointsC: 70-79 pointsD: 60-69 pointsF: 0-59 points 

REQUIREMENTS 

 leadership  Professionalism  Intergenerational Management  health care mangment 

THE CONDESCENDING DENTAL HYGIENIST—CASE FOR CHAPTERS 7, 12, 15, AND 4 

Sharon B. Buchbinder 

Dr. Rose, a 65-year-old woman, goes to her six month appointment for a dental cleaning. Upon arrival, the receptionist requests her insurance card, driver’s license, and an updated health form. On the form, Dr. Rose indicates a lengthy list of allergies, including a scrub used for surgeries. The previous summer, after a minor in-office procedure, she discovered this new allergy to chlorhexidine, so she is careful to include it on all her allergy lists. 

The dental hygienist, Chrissy, a new 21-year-old employee, inquires about Dr. Rose’s profession. When she tells the hygienist she is a registered nurse and a university professor, Chrissy pats her shoulder and says, “Oh, that’s nice, dear.” 

The hygienist instructs Dr. Rose to rinse her mouth out with an antibacterial mouthwash for 30 seconds. While she is having her teeth cleaned, Dr. Rose notices a letter “C” on the bottle of mouthwash and turns it around. It is chlorhexidine, the very ingredient she was allergic to in the surgical scrub. She informs the hygienist immediately and begins to rinse her mouth with water repeatedly. 

Chrissy protests and tells Dr. Rose she is mistaken, it is not the same thing, “dear,” that scrub is “what you wash your hands with.” She pats Dr. Rose’s arm again, telling her to be a “good patient” and to open her mouth for cleaning. 

Dr. Rose gets out of the chair, grabs her smartphone, points to the surgical scrub and the active ingredient. She uses her albuterol nebulizer and takes a dose of prednisone. Chrissy continues to insist it is not the same substance when the dentist enters the room and asks what is going on. 

Between puffs on her nebulizer, Dr. Rose relays the incident to the dentist. 

Chrissy continues to protest until the dentist tells her she is wrong, it is the same active ingredient. The dentist offers Dr. Rose a shot of epinephrine, which she declines. Dr. Rose leaves the office as quickly as she can and returns home, grateful she didn’t swallow the mouthwash and annoyed by the dental hygienist’s condescending behaviors. 

Upon arrival at home, Dr. Rose receives a phone call from Chrissy, asking, “How are you feeling, dear?” 

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 

1. What are the facts of this case? 

2. Review the quality improvement tools in Chapter 7 and select the appropriate one to analyze this problem. 

3. What are the top three management issues in this case? 

4. What are the legal and ethical obligations a health care professional has to his or her patients and how do they apply to this case? 

5. What attribution error did Chrissy make about Dr. Rose? How did that influence her communication with her patient? 

6. Who should be held responsible for addressing these problems? 

7. What obligations does the dentist have to Dr. Rose? 

Introduction to Health Care Management 

Author: Sharon B. Buchbinder 

ISBN: 9781284119725