My concerns about this practice began with what I perceived as bias during a conversation with Dr…read more Patty about my child's care escalated when I discovered multiple errors in my children's records, including incorrect insurance and personal information, documentation of treatment that was never provided (stating my 20 month old received xrays), and incomplete notes regarding my conversation with Dr. Patty.
During an appointment, I was informed that my autistic child had cavities and that the practice recommended general anesthesia to complete the necessary treatment. I asked reasonable questions about costs, primary teeth, and whether general anesthesia could be avoided, while making it clear that I intended to pursue the necessary care. Dr. Patty asked whether I had "transportation issues" due to the distance to the surgical office in Newark. I found this question unrelated to the concerns I had raised, leaving me feeling that my questions were being interpreted as something other than a parent seeking to understand the recommended treatment.
Along with noticing my oldest son (6 y/o) being labeled as the incorrect sex. I also discovered an unsupported "low socioeconomic status" designation in my 20 months old Caries Risk Assessment (CRA), despite never providing financial information and my child having private insurance. The practice gave me conflicting explanations for the designation (the nature of the location of the community along with the medicaid status). After I clarified that my child had private insurance, the assessment was removed. The CRA also appeared on the billing summary, raising further questions about its inclusion. I was additionally told that Dr. Patty claimed I had said both children had Medicaid, which I dispute. Especially since I provided the insurance in detail on the phone that same day.
More than a month later, the office manager, Clarence, contacted me about bringing my child in for treatment despite the recommendation for sedation elsewhere, then acknowledged that the call was a mistake after reviewing the notes. This was another example of the practice's repeated errors. Why not review the notes before calling? Especially when I spoke to the office manager a month prior regarding my initial concerns.
As a Black mother who attended the appointment alone with my two young children, I am concerned that racial or socioeconomic assumptions may have influenced how we were treated. I cannot know the intent, but the unsupported designation, transportation question, inconsistent explanations, and repeated documentation errors have seriously undermined my trust in this practice. I am grateful my children were not harmed, but families deserve accurate records, respectful communication, and care free from bias.
