Common Medico-Legal Issues in Facial Trauma (part one)

The treatment of facial injuries has evolved considerably over the last 30 or so years and many injuries can now be reliably repaired to a reasonable level of precision. However, patients’ expectations have also evolved in parallel. Together with the portrayal of the cosmetic industry by some elements of the media, this has resulted in a culture of high expectation and a demand for perfect results. Yet, the reality is that surgery is never free of risk and despite these advances, many patients will often be left with some stigmata of either their injury or its treatment. Some aspects of normal recovery (such as prolonged bruising or swelling) may also be perceived as complications if patients are not warned beforehand. Failure to meet such expectations can therefore result in disappointment and sometimes litigation.

Furthermore, not all treatments are freely available in the NHS. Some dental treatments, rhinoplasties and scar revisions for example, are not always available and can be quite expensive privately. Understandably therefore, some patients may feel aggrieved when they are suddenly faced with the prospect of a sizeable fee (and the inconvenience of multiple visits) to repair or replace damaged teeth, or undergo treatment for a deformity. This may be compounded if (in the patient’s opinion) the injury was through no fault of their own, such as following an assault or accident. Consequently, they may seek retribution or compensation to ease their financial burden by any means possible, which may include clinicians or Trusts.

For many patients, the treatment of their facial injuries can be a long and complicated process. For us, as clinicians, this process has the potential to be a medico-legal minefield. As an observation, the more common claims centre around:

1. The precise determination of the presence of injuries.

The medicolegal implications of whether a fracture is actually present or not, are self evident when its comes to personal injury claims or following assault. However fine ‘cracks’ in the facial bones (which are technically fractures) can not always be proven (or disproven) with absolute certainty, based on clinical examination, or even following 'X-Rays'. There will always be an element of clinical judgement required in making such a diagnosis. X-Rays themselves are limited in their ability to visualise fine fractures. If the presence of a fracture is uncertain, clinicians are trained to err on the side of caution and will manage patients as though they do have a fracture. This is to minimise the likelihood of complications developing. However, such caution may then become misrepresented as ‘proof’ that a fracture is present.

Furthermore, not all facial injuries require X-rays. The over-riding reason for taking these is if they will alter the management of the patient. As such, suspected ‘cracks’ and most isolated fractures of the nose do not require imaging. The days of x-raying purely for medico-legal reasons have long past. Aside from the unnecessary expense to the NHS, GMC and GDC guidance is clear on this and we must resist requests to take an X-Ray if they do not alter the care of our patients. Clinicians may be put under pressure from patients (and relatives) to ‘get a scan’. Refusal to do so can often be misconstrued as incompetence, inexperience, or not taking the patient seriously. Not surprisingly, some patients may feel aggrieved by this apparent lack of thoroughness. Nevertheless, unnecessary imaging is regarded as a major ‘sin’ within our regulating bodies and as such carries the risk of disciplinary action if guidance is ignored.

2. Missing treatable injuries.

Not all injuries are obvious and, despite our best efforts, there will unfortunately be occasions when treatable injuries are overlooked. Whilst these are seldom life-threatening, some can result in disfigurement and troublesome symptoms. Some may require expensive treatment, for example the eventual loss or discolouration of a tooth. One particularly difficult group of patients to assess are those that are unconscious, for example following a head injury. In this group it is not possible to assess whether the patient has sustained any significant visual impairment. Examination of the eyes and face is at best relatively crude. In children, certain fractures of the eye socket may present with an irritable, vomiting child – signs more often associated with head injuries. Significant delay in diagnosis because of this ‘misdirection’ can result in permanent double vision (diplopia).

3. Pre-existing problems

Whilst the impact of missing such injuries may be difficult to defend, this may not always be the case. Pre-existing dental neglect and dental disease (notably decay and periodontal [gum] disease) will predispose teeth to injury and loss (including damage during anaesthesia). Any new injury may simply be the ‘straw that broke the camels back’ in a tooth that was already destined to be lost in the near future. Therefore, when determining ‘blame’ such considerations need to be balanced against the likelihood that the tooth in question did indeed have a good prognosis before the injury occurred. This may be difficult to prove, especially in patients who rarely see a dentist.

4. Interpreting injuries.

In most cases, it is not possible to say with certainty the manner in which a particular injury occurred. Unfortunately, the likes of 'CSI' and other similar TV programmes tend to suggest otherwise. Police reports often ask clinicians to state whether a fracture occurred as a result of an assault, fall or some other mechanism. However, such information falls under the remit of forensics rather than medicine, particularly when it is required as part of the prosecution’s evidence. Whilst the ‘balance of probabilities’ test eases this pressure, as clinicians our expertise is in establishing the presence of an injury and treating it, not in establishing how it occurred. Police and medical reports can therefore be a slippery slope to the court.

Interestingly, it could even be argued that our entire experiences are in fact flawed. In my experience (of over 20 years) only 2 patients have ever admitted they actually ‘started the fight’. This could lead to one of two conclusions – i) either attack really is the best form of defence, or ii) perhaps (more likely) we are never given the entire story. If this is indeed the case, then our experiences in the understanding of facial trauma mechanisms are to some extent flawed and could be challenged. As a matter of course, I do take patients’ stories with a small pinch of salt and I have wondered if other specialists have the same experience.

Nevertheless, in some cases some conclusions can be drawn. Some types of laceration may give an indication as to the cause of the injury, for example whether the skin was cut or split. Similarly, the shape of a bruise, or split in the skin may indicate the type of blunt weapon used. Some wounds may also give an indication about the site of impact and direction of the force. But again, this is really forensics, not medicine.

5. Delays in diagnosis.

Excessive delays in diagnosis and treatment may adversely impact on outcomes, for example treatments aimed at either salvaging teeth (such as replantation, or root canal therapy), or maintaining their cosmetic appearances. Similarly, significant delays in repairing facial wounds and fixing fractures can result in suboptimal outcomes. Over time, simple fractures become more difficult to treat. Understandably therefore, patients may not be too happy with the prospect of an extra surgical scar on their face, because a simple fracture was initially ‘missed’ and now requires more complex surgery. Similarly, If a tooth is ultimately lost the patient may feel there has been a shortfall in care by not diagnosing the problem sooner.

That said, some patients need to take ownership of their injuries and act accordingly. Failing to attend follow up appointments is a common problem which immediately adds to any delay in management. Many hospitals have policies in place to discharge patients that fail to attend follow up appointments and this can result in significant delays, if patients then need to be re-referred. 'Choice' and 'partnership' are words commonly used by politicians and managers to empower patients. So, if a patient ‘chooses’ not to attend a pre-arranged (and agreed) follow up appointment, who is at fault if subsequent treatment then becomes more complicated?

However, it is also important to remember that co- existing concussion, fatigue, alcohol and drugs (both analgesic and recreational) can impair anyone’s ability to retain information. Telling a very drunk patient to attend a follow up appointment may therefore result in non-attendance. Written instructions should therefore be given. Detained prisoners comprise another small but important group. Normally, with non-prisoners, review appointments are often given at the end of the consultation, but this practice may be deterred by the accompanying officers, so that the prisoner does not know. In my experience this (plus the lack of staff) can result in missed appointments and delays in follow up and treatment.

In the second part of this article, to be published in the next issue, I will discuss the impact of NHS targets on treatment of facial trauma, as well as other issues such as patient consent, confidentiality, and compliance, – which could all arise in litigation.

Michael can be contacted on: michaelperry@nhs.net

‍