Case against dentist dismissed (From Salisbury Journal)

Case against dentist dismissed

9:12am Friday 21st March 2008 in

• Skip social links
• Print
• Email
•  

A DENTIST who caused a woman's skin to peel off after giving her antibiotics without testing whether she was allergic first has been cleared of charges laid against him.

The General Dental Council described it as 'unfortunate' that Alek Missankov, 37, did not identify Paula Barrett's penicillin allergy from her records at the Salisbury dental practice where he worked.

But the panel could not be sure Missankov failed to ask her about her allergies before prescribing the drug and dismissed the case against him.

Mrs Barrett suffered a massive allergic reaction on November 15, 2006, causing her legs to turn purple and her skin to peel off in thick layers.

Missankov of Wallington Drive, Chandlers Ford, Eastleigh, insisted she had not told him about any allergies when he was writing out the prescription for Amoxycillin.

Committee chair Gill Madden said: "There is a conflict of evidence which is central to the issue as to what was said in the surgery on November 15, 2006 by both you and Mrs Barrett.

"This has not been an easy issue to resolve because it seems to the committee likely that if you had told Mrs Barrett that you were prescribing penicillin, she would have alerted you to a possible allergic reaction.

"On the other hand, the committee feels it is unlikely that you did not make some enquiries about a possible allergy before prescribing antibiotics, notwithstanding the circumstances of an emergency appointment.

"In the light of Mrs Barrett's evidence that she would not have told you about her allergy unless you had specified penicillin, it is understandable how an antibiotic to which she was allergic was prescribed if you had described it in some other way.

"The committee does not believe that either witness has set out deliberately to mislead the committee or give false evidence.

"The committee is not satisfied that you did not adequately review medical records.

"It is unfortunate that you did not identify the penicillin allergy from the paper records."

The committee had heard that Mrs Barrett, a married mother from Salisbury, went to see Missankov after developing a lump in her gum and throbbing pain' after being previously fitted with a crown by another dentist at the St Ann Dental Care practice.

He told her he had detected an infection in the tooth and prescribed a five-day course of two antibiotics, including Amoxycillin, but she had no idea it contained penicillin.

Just hours after taking the antibiotics, Mrs Barrett suffered a massive reaction that left her face swollen up and her eyes closed completely.' She ended up with blisters in her mouth and was unable to eat solid foods for five days after the appointment.

Mrs Barrett also had to wear latex gloves after the skin on her hands started peeling off and had trouble extending her fingers because they had become so dry.

She also suffered an accelerated heart beat and pins and needles' all over her body.

Her face also became so sore she could not put her head on the pillow.' She was signed off work for two weeks following the reaction.

Mrs Barrett had told the GDC hearing in London that she had been allergic to penicillin since her twenties and always ensured any medical or dental practitioners were aware of the allergy.

But she claimed that there had been no discussion of her previous medical history with Mr Missankov or whether she had suffered allergic reactions in the past.

Mr Missankov, who qualified in 1997 in Johannesburg, only worked briefly at St Ann Dental Care from November 2006 until December 22, 2006 He had denied not adequately reviewing Mrs Barrett's records wherein a confidential medical history form indicated that Mrs Barrett had an allergy to penicillin, and not taking an adequate medical history from Mrs Barrett prior to prescribing antibiotics.