Skip navigation
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct - Header

Issues in Remediating a Correctional Dental Program, Shulman (9th Cir Corrections Summit), 2015

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Issues in Remediating a
Correctional Dental Program
Prepared for the 2015 Ninth Circuit
Corrections Summit, November 4-6, 2015
Jay D. Shulman, DMD, MA, MSPH
Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Periodontics
Baylor College of Dentistry

Objectives
• Describe dental needs of correctional population
• Components of an adequate dental program
• Issues related to remediating and monitoring based
on experiences with Fussell and Perez
Settlement Agreement
 Selection and responsibilities of monitors
 Determining when substantial compliance is achieved


A Perfect Storm for Dental Disease
• More dental disease than free population
• Substantial pre-existing needs



Prisons take inmates as they are, not as they wish them to be
Staffing should accommodate high prevalence of dental needs

• Caries – risk factors: diet, substance abuse, polypharmacy


Many drug classes cause dry mouth which promotes decay

• Periodontal disease – risk factors diabetes, poor oral hyg.
• Edentulism – high prevalence of tooth loss
• Oral cancer – risk factors: race, tobacco, age

Adequate Dental Program
• “Consistent with generally accepted professional
standards … not limited to extractions … timely”
• Diagnosis: caries, periodontal disease, oral cancer
• Treatment should include continuum of care:
Extractions, fillings, removable dentures and limited
periodontics
 Urgent care (toothaches) – timely pain relief
 Routine – untimely treatment may result in tooth loss
 Pain relief when clinic is closed (access to mid-levels)


Systemic Issues
• Care adequate in quality and quantity




Diagnosis consistent with professional standards
Scope of care - basic dental needs (a prison is not a health spa)
Institutional (public health) versus private practice model

• Timeliness (requires adequate access)



Toothaches – pain relief and treatment by dentist
Understaffed programs focus exclusively on toothaches

• Qualified providers (dentists, hygienists, assistants)
• Adequate policies and procedures

Settlement Agreement
• Process for selecting dental experts / monitors
• Process for dealing with expert disagreements
• Chief Monitor in multi-disciplinary cases?



Stand-alone dental, health care, or conditions of confinement
Fussell (Ohio) versus Perez (California) models

• Reporting requirements for experts
• Coordination with other cases (e.g., Perez)

Settlement Agreement (cont.)
• Specify resources, personnel and organizational structure
• Process to develop audit instrument
• Implementation timetable



Deviations require explanation
Phased implementation for large systems

• Specify ‘goal posts’ (or a process to develop them)
• Operational definition of substantial compliance based on audits
and other mandated changes

Audit Instrument
• Based on policies and procedures; approved by parties



Cast elements into binary questions
Several sections with different passing scores

• Agreement as to passing scores for each section
• Clear record selection rules
• Process for test audits and adjustments


Time consuming – may require several iterations

• Written report to parties

Experts / Monitors
• Must have confidence of parties and Court


An evolutionary process

• Must not lose sight of role – goal is an adequate, not a
perfect system
• Be prepared to serve as consultants to program if asked
• Should have ‘reasonable’ access to:




Reports and facilities
Dental providers (including contractors)
Custody (to look at pass system, escort process)

Perez / Fussell Remediation Lessons
• Two experts – one nominated by each party
• Initial contentious phase (“getting to acceptance”)
• Stable, experienced program leadership who are dentists
• Collaborative approach among experts and parties


Extensive interaction between experts and program leadership

• Critical that there is no disagreement over ‘facts’



Program staff participate in prison visits and audits
Opportunity to review draft reports (to identify inaccuracies)

 

 

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side
Advertise Here 3rd Ad
CLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x600