Which of the following is an evaluation criteria for a dentist when reviewing an impaired hygiene peer?

The evaluation criterion that focuses on "imminent danger to patients" is crucial when assessing an impaired hygiene peer. This consideration underscores the ethical and legal responsibilities of dentists to ensure patient safety and welfare. If a hygienist's impairment puts patients at risk, it becomes imperative for the dentist to act promptly to address the situation, which may include reporting the issue or seeking intervention.

Evaluating the potential harm to patients is foundational in clinical settings, as health professionals must prioritize the well-being of those they serve. This criterion aligns with the duty to protect patients from risks that might arise from impaired performance, thereby safeguarding public health and maintaining the integrity of the dental profession.

In contrast, while past ethical violations, success of past treatments, and personal references can provide insight into a hygienist’s overall professional conduct, they do not immediately indicate whether a colleague poses a direct risk to patients. These factors may be relevant for a broader evaluation of competence or reliability, but the immediate concern must always center around the potential for harm in the context of impairment. This prioritization of patient safety reflects the fundamental principles underlying health care ethics and regulations.