Abandoned Dreams - Which Career Dreams Did YOU Abandon?
It's a Question of Taste - (Practice Ownership - Love it or Hate it).
Johnson & Johnson Ltd., the maker of LISTERINE®, is delighted to be the British Society of Dental Hygiene & Therapist’s (BSDHT) student membership sponsor for 2020.
The BSDHT is the UK’s largest professional body for practising dental hygienists, dental therapists and associated students. The mission of BSDHT is to represent the interests of members and to provide a consultative body for public and private organisations on all matters relating to dental hygiene and therapy, providing the highest level of information to members as well as to the general public. This aligns perfectly with Johnson & Johnson Ltd.’s commitment to supporting dental health care professionals (DHCPs) in their efforts to improve patients’ oral health.
This sponsorship deal will support the growth of BSDHT membership by removing the financial barrier for 100 student dental hygienists and dental therapists in 2020. Johnson & Johnson will fund five student memberships per dental school throughout the UK, until the end of March 2020 when any remaining places will be offered on a first come, first served basis.
As part of this membership, students will enjoy some great benefits, including:
For your chance to take advantage of this incredible offer, email the BSDHT at
Happy 2020 to Dr Moyes and colleagues.
I hesitated before putting finger to keyboard on this topic, it’s too easy, and a real barn door isn’t it? In fact I wrote, rewrote, and finally binned, one piece and started again.
Here are some New Year wishes for the General Dental Council. They make demands and enforce what they say are patients’ expectations of the Dental profession; surely this should not be a one-way street?
Empathy. If there is one quality that is essential in any successful relationship it is empathy or “The ability to understand and share the feelings of another”. I have looked back through the last decade of the GDC and seen little evidence that they have made any concerted effort to either understand or share the feelings of the tens of thousands of people on their register. Lip service from the occasional survey perhaps, worded in such a way to avoid exploring the real fears of day-to-day clinical practice.
Context. All practices are different, all patients are different. There cannot be one rule for all. Yet it seems we are reaching a point where any treatment that is less than “ideal” is unacceptable and therefore negligent. I was able to convert my practice away from a reliance on the NHS in the early 90s. When I reached my personal ceiling and sold it I then did locums in different sorts of places and had my eyes opened. In some places the practice of dentistry is like working in a war zone with a shifting population, all with different wants, needs, expectations and budgets.
In the same way with the massive shift towards corporate and chain practices there can be pressures on, but little support for, younger dentists. When shareholder value, rather than patient care, becomes part of a company’s ethos the clinician is often caught in the middle between bean counters and patient expectations. It can take years to build an appropriate trusting relationship with a patient yet pressure to “produce” can put unrealistic and unfair expectations on clinicians.
Engagement. When was the last time any of the staff actually listened and responded face to face with a group of dentists and their teams about what the future has planned for them? The current (Corporate) Strategy is so full of “corporate speak” that any message is hidden behind paragraphs like this one, “Key to fulfilling our statutory responsibilities is ensuring that our resources are allocated to reflect our priorities and that opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our operations are taken promptly. Much has been achieved in this respect, but there is more to do and we are actively pursuing further opportunities.”
Humility. Dr Moyes could learn a lesson or two from the Chief Dental Officers who put themselves in the (metaphorical) firing line at conferences and speak… and appear to listen. They have learned from the mistakes of predecessors, the GDC shows no such humility. This aspect is damning.
Leadership. The morale of many dentists, especially young dentists, in the UK is at an all time low, there is clearly a disconnect between what their expectations are and what the reality is that they encounter. The only body that has control over both education and daily dentistry wherever it is practiced is the GDC.
Brexit and more. It is clear from the cases that come before the GDC that many overseas graduates are not prepared for practice in the UK. The responsibility for that falls on the shoulders of the GDC. Or are they under such pressure to keep the dental lights on and the dental queues at bay that things could are fudged?
Blame game. Reports of meetings from official and unofficial sources say that the usual excuse for any lack of action is “it would take government intervention” which translates into “we don’t have the will”.
It is clear that large, unrealistic contracts, [like the famous cross infection control case in Nottingham] have been awarded, the profession has known that, why hasn’t the GDC taken steps to ensure things are running well and the mistakes remedied? Or would that be the clip-boarding, tick-boxers of the CQC’s responsibility?
Finally. I challenge you to grasp one simple nettle, just the one, only one. Allow registrants to pay their registration fees monthly by direct debit. It is one element that typifies the lack of listening, the lack of will to take action and the inability to appear to be anything other than a Dickensian schoolmaster who knows only wrong in others.
Happy New Year to you and to all who pay the fees that you collect, spend and keep in reserve. I wish you all the very best for 2020.
I won’t pretend for a second that the news stories breaking around dentistry in 2019 came up to the standard of those surrounding the world of politics. We didn’t have the dental equivalent of a Prime Minister resigning, the new one willingly calling a general election and that Prime Minister’s Pinky and Perky twin across the water being impeached. But it wasn’t completely without drama. The GDC, in particular, being the gift that keeps on giving.
The Daily Mail carried on its tradition of providing cheap and easy to read non-verifiable CPD, by highlighting the results of a Cochrane Review which found there was no clinical difference between patients receiving regular scheduled scaling and polishing against those not having a ‘scrape and brush-up’ (not the Mail’s term, my patient Mrs Cholmondsley of Milton-on-the Truss’s term for what our hygienist did to earn a living). The Dundee meta-analysis of two studies involving 1711 patients found that there was no difference in the two groups with regard to the development of early signs of gum disease. There was a noticeable difference in terms of calculus build up but the researchers didn’t think the build-up was significant although it was remarked that they didn’t know whether this build-up was more important to the patient or the dentist. As a dentist I always worried about munge building up around the gum margins, and fortunately Professor Damien Walmsley agreed with me. I also worried about stories like these in the general press, just in case people like Matt Hancock inadvertently see them while searching for their latest polling figures. It hasn’t happened yet, but just you wait for the government to reduce the number of scales NHS patients are allowed per year, with a concomitant reduction in fees.
Meanwhile also in January and in the same vein, the Journal of Clinical Periodontology published the results of a study which revealed that pregnant women are one and a half times more likely to go into labour prematurely, if they have gum disease. So here’s an idea – why not ensure pregnant women have closer periodontal supervision during parturiency by carrying out regular scale and polishes…oh!
But if the dental profession has less work to do because we ARE banned from doing scales, that will hopefully neutralise the effects of the inevitable reduction in EU trained dentists leaving the UK as a result of Brexit. The General Dental Council presented evidence that up to a third of EU qualified dentists on the dental register may quit UK dentistry after Brexit because of…Brexit and its associated uncertainties. Some of the EU-trained dentists also cited the difficulties of working under the NHS and dental regulation as reasons for leaving. I think these Europeans have their heads screwed on. Who could blame them for shunning a system which pays them a piddling amount for one filling and exactly the same amount for half a dozen fillings. Brexit means Brexit. Exploitation means exploitation.
Also in January, the British Dental Journal published a large-scale study of 2,000 practitioners which showed that almost half of dentists admitted that job stresses were exceeding their ability to cope. The study found that the most stressful aspects of their work was related to regulation and fear of litigation from their patients. It probably doesn’t help the mood of GDP’s that they’re being told that some of their ministrations are pointless (see above), that at some point a litigation lawyer might blame them for premature births and their workload is going to increase in 2020 when Manuel and Helmut escape back to the mainland.
February saw the revelation that practitioners were more likely to be struck off the GDC register if they didn’t have any legal representation at hearings. A Freedom of Information request to the GDC by Dental Protection showed that nearly two thirds of dentists who were erased from the dental register didn’t have a legal advocate speaking on their behalf. My first thought about that story was “What kind of fruitcake would go to the GDC without legal representation?” Having been a career-long member of one of the original ‘big two’ professional indemnity organisations, the thought never entered my head that such representation may be denied. But apparently, that’s not the case. Even though they often offer cheaper ‘cover’ to dentists, there are defence organisation or insurers who may decline assistance to dentists in personal conduct matters. You pays your money and you takes your choice. I personally preferred to pay a not insignificant amount per month in the hopes that if I got into trouble I would get Rumpole defending me rather than rely on my own inane ramblings that come out more like Elmer Fudd than Perry Mason.
Big news this month was that ‘British Teeth’ helped win an Oscar. Rami Malek won an Academy Award for his role as Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody wearing prosthetic teeth made by dental technician Chris Lyons for British-based Fangs FX. Much to the mild annoyance of British dentists, Americans often use the denigratory term ‘British Teeth’ to describe not only our teeth, but British dentistry. Just a slight snag – Freddie was born in Zanzibar to Parsi parents. So they were more like Persian Pearlies than our pride and joy.
Birmingham University hit the dental headlines with its new dental model that reproduces the feel and ‘behaviour’ of real gums and the tongue. As well as helping to teach students how to examine the mouth safely and check for disease, the models reproduce the ‘feel’ experienced when checking pocket depths. In my opinion, this must be a welcome and invaluable teaching aid. The first time most dentists had to check for pocket depths was on a patient. Nobody can tell you how it feels to use a pocket probe or how much pressure to place on the tip. This probably explains the squeamishness of a lot of dentists trained up to now, in tackling pocket depths. You simply didn’t know when to stop pressing – wait until the patient’s eyes rolled back into their sockets or simply sobbed and/or threatened litigation.
I warned you about this back in January. In April, the RAINDROP study carried out by the University of Newcastle proposed that ‘routine’ scaling and polishing of teeth should be stopped from the dental budget since the money would be better off being spent elsewhere. I personally felt this was poppycock. Since many NHS scalings, I would suggest, are completed on a Band 1 treatment with an examination, how is money going to be saved? The Nash gets a bargain out of dentists anyway for this service and money-saving will only be executed by cutting the fee for an examination I reckon. I repeat. I told you back in January and you wouldn’t listen, would you?
The GDC was seeking views on its consultation for its strategy for 2020-2 – “Working with the dental team for public safety and confidence.” GDC chair Bill Moyes boldly claimed that the overall decrease in GDC expenditure pointed to a significant reduction in the dentist’s Annual Retention Fee. My advice on that is – don’t hold your breath. Highly unlikely. I bet you believe in the tooth fairy as well, don’t you?
The Government’s Migration Advisory Committee announced that dentists would not be on the Shortage Occupation List, despite the BDA’s evidence that 63% of dental practices are experiencing difficulties in recruiting dentists and the GDC’s findings that a third of EU graduates may leave the UK in the next five years. A significant number of currently registered dentists are also thought to be considering retirement in the next few year – for ‘considering retirement,’ read ‘running for the exit like their backsides are on fire.’ One suggestion to alleviate the operator shortage problem – get a UK trained dental therapist before everyone catches on.
Thankfully, I never came close, but it was always something else to worry about. July saw NHS England and NHS Improvement (nope, I’d never heard of it either, I’ll need to Google it later) agreed to remove wrong-site blocks as a ‘never event.’ The British Dental Association had long argued that administration of wrong site blocks didn’t meet the threshold of a never-event. Although inconvenient to the patient and incredibly embarrassing for the dentist or student, giving a patient a dribble on the wrong side, is hardly likely to kill.
Removing the wrong teeth is considered a never-event and I would suggest that allowing your dog to bite a practice inspector really ought to be on the list. Dentist Aileen Hopkins was erased by the GDC after one of the three dogs she kept at the surgery bit an inspector. The dentist had 57 complaints about safety and hygiene also considered, but the dentist apparently thought the GDC was being a bit “nit-picky.”
Journalists know August as ‘the silly season,’ the time of year when people are on holiday and Parliament and public bodies uproot and go to the Algarve. Hence, not a lot happens during August, which meant the The London Evening Standard reported on the UK’s first ‘healthy’ supermarket which was launched in Central London. In essence, the store was giving greater visibility to healthy foods such as fruit and vegetables and less shelf space to foods like chocolate, crisps and sugary drinks. And that was it really. Laudable though it is, it didn’t really press any journalistic buttons. Nobody was bitten by a dog and no one was brought in front of a disciplinary body for stacking M&M’s in front of the Monster Munch.
The British Orthodontic Society and Oral Health Foundation announced plans for a national campaign to warn patients about the risks of internet-based/DIY orthodontics. GDPUK had warned earlier in the year that patients are being prescribed courses of adult orthodontics without seeing a qualified dentist face-to-face or having a full clinical examination. Although one of the companies involved in providing internet-based ortho offers ‘scanning’ in various centres throughout the UK, you CAN have a traditional impression taken – providing you take it yourself. Curious, I approached an online advisor at Smile Direct Club for further information. Just don’t try the following if you are keen on hanging on to your registration.
Bad news for parents of teething children, hoping for restful nights. The British Dental Association revealed that 9 of the 14 teeth products licenced for use in the UK could have potentially harmful side effects. The nine products contained either sucrose, alcohol and or/lidocaine and there is apparently little evidence that the products are effective in reducing teething pain. Where does that leave dentists when confronted with a red-eyed, half-lidded mum begging for advice on how to relieve teething pain? My guidance for the desperate parents would still be alcohol. Forget the child, just drink the alcohol.
But great news for dentists. Early in October, the GDC announced the new levels of ARF fees set for the next three years, ‘barring any unforeseen exceptional circumstances.’ The new level for dentists is £680 and £114 for dental care professionals. Two thoughts: a) why did they bring reduced fees in after I retired? b) what does the GDC define as ‘unforeseen and exceptional circumstances?” There’s still three months to go. Don’t bank on it yet!
Also in October, Medical News Today reported on a study linking periodontal disease with hypertension. This didn’t surprise me. Patients with perio often caused my blood pressure to rise.
More concerning was the revelation that overseas dentists are being allowed to register as dental therapists by the General Dental Council, without any practical examination of their clinical skills. Normally, dentists qualifying outside the EU have to take the Overseas Registration Examination (ORE) or the Licentiate In Dental Surgery. An investigation by GDPUK.com revealed that there is a high failure rate in the practical element of the ORE and yet overseas dentists are being allowed to register and carry out operative restorative procedures on patients, with no further checks on their skills. The GDC is apparently convinced that its checking of the dental syllabus of these dentists is ‘robust’ and yet apparently NOT robust enough if they want to work as dentists.
At the end of October, the GDC was again in the headlines, when it was revealed that the regulatory body withheld evidence from its own Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) which resulted in the erroneous reinstatement of a fraudulent dentist to the dental register. Justice Julian Knowles criticised the GDC in a High Court hearing brought against the GDC and the dentist, by the Professional Standards Authority. He said the GDC had committed a ‘serious procedural irregularity’ in withholding evidence from the PCC. The evidence was withheld following its late submission to the dentist’s legal counsel because it had been mislaid by a GDC solicitor.
The GDC was probably feeling hunted by now, much like their registrants. It was early in the month that the Daily Telegraph revealed that the GDC had spent over £17,000 on hiring private investigators to ‘investigate’ registrants. BDA chair Mick Armstrong described the GDC’s investigatory method as ‘entrapment.’ One case involved private eyes attempting to induce a clinical dental technician to provide treatment without a dental examination by a dentist, by claiming she was too unwell to go to see a dentist for an examination. This revelation just made me feel slightly grubby. I mean, the GDC is supposed to be setting the profession’s standards and all they are interested in is in putting on a heavily stained Columbo mac.
It appears that the GDC only scares legitimate dental professionals. GDPUK.com ran a story that a Derby man who was fined for illegal teeth whitening in 2017 has been caught doing it again. A Derbyshire Live reporter set up a sting operation to catch Colin Vernall attempting to sell his whitening wares again. He told the reporter although he wasn’t registered with the ‘dental council,’ he did do a course. Mr Vernall, who prefers to be called ‘Vern’ Collins (sounds legit) is still taking money for his whitening service despite the £7,000 fine he received as a result of a court case brought by Derby City Council Trading Standards officers. When the reporter revealed his identity, Vern said: “Teeth whitening has changed and it’s self-administered, I simply supply the equipment and you place the tray and products in your mouth yourself.” Thus abrogating all responsibility presumably. He added “I'm simply renting you the light to accelerate the procedure.” When it was obvious the reporter wasn’t going to use his services, Vern said: “I just got a taxi up here, it has cost me a tenner to get here as well.” Vern has gone ‘mobile’ since his £7,000 run in with Trading Standards.
As I write during the hiatus between Christmas and New Year’s Eve, the GDC hasn’t yet found any ‘unforeseen exceptional circumstances’ which will destroy our dream of having to pay a mere £680 quid a year to have our names placed on an internet list.
But there’s still two working days, so don’t spend the savings yet.
Distribute some Christmas Cheer - Ideas for Dental Christmas Gifts
If the BDA did not exist…It would need to be invented.
I was encouraged as a student not only to join the BDA but also to join in. I have served in several roles at Section and Branch and, even as a non-clinician, I still read and enjoy the BDJ.
I remain, an advocate and a critic of the BDA. I am often reminded of the “What have the Romans ever done” sketch from The Life of Brian when dentists ask, “What has the BDA ever done for me?”. They often continue, “Why don’t they…?” the questions being the old chestnuts, “Sort out the GDC/CQC/Department of Health” or “get some action like the BMA does”. The same individuals usually disappear when you ask them to do something for themselves or others.
So what is the BDA’s role, how could it change and what benefit would that bring? The cliche goes, “You wouldn’t want to start from here”, but here is where we are.
The BDA’s mission statement is: “to promote the interests of members, advance the science, arts and ethics of dentistry and improve the nation’s oral health.”
Let’s accept that and start there.
A new organisation is a non-starter, it has been tried with little success, why reinvent the wheel? It could be a broader church, D stands for Dental not Dentist. Many successful sections actively welcome all team members to their meetings, we work in the same places and, if we want to truly embrace team working, why not?
An individual’s perception is their reality. The BDA is composed largely of people who work in general practice and, rightly or wrongly, they see the BDA through the lens of their silo. Their interests are different from one working in the community, academia or the hospital services. The main challenge is making sure that you are profitable, dentists like all small business owners run the risk of bankruptcy and ruin if they don’t get their maths right. Many practices run on very small margins of profitably, are undercapitalised and work from hand to mouth. More like corner shops than other professional businesses.
For many this has worsened since the imposition of the 2006 contract for which I most definitely do not blame the BDA. The then CDO did a whitewash job and the contract is deeply flawed, underfunded and bad for everyone.
Dentistry is a very stressful occupation. It can be a lonely place; being a medical professional has pressures upon it, having to make immediate decisions with patients that are awake and where you have finite time to complete procedures produces even more pressure.
Being the owner and main producer of a small business is lonely too. Many dentists are poor leaders and have problems separating management from leadership.
The stress of working under the NHS system plus an aggressive GDC is showing itself in rising numbers becoming burnt out and dissatisfied with their lot. In my role as a business consultant I meet many people at their wits end, not knowing which way to turn.
The BDA should be far more active in encouraging dentists to move away from a reliance on the NHS. In the past many elected representatives choose to be reliant on the NHS, have businesses that cope with the system and are so close to retirement they do not want to make changes. Change is happening there at last.
Through the sections and branches the BDA is responsible for large amounts of CPD provision yet there seems to be little cross communication. Some sections shine like beacons, others hardly flicker. Newer CPD providers have adopted different ways to be more attractive to a changing audience and the BDA has been slow to embrace the change.
One of the advantages of local face to face meetings is the provision of “fellowship”. Traditionally the opportunity to share experiences in a non-confrontational way with senior and junior colleagues provides a great way to let off steam, to unwind to share and gain support.
The annual conference was an excellent source of CPD and a hub around which the Dental World rotated, yet latterly struggled for an identity and was eventually subsumed by The Dentistry Show. I know that decision was hard to make and to take.
The BDA has clearly listened to criticism and there is far more comment and reaction about dentistry in the news. We also see and hear about disagreements, the profession has a mouthpiece with an opinion.
The press office needs to be ahead of the game more often and on more topics. For this to work there needs to be more dentists willing to stand up and speak up locally.
I would like the BDA to take a long hard look at what the scenery of UK dentistry should look like in a decade’s time, to examine other systems and drive change. The only opportunity we have of being ahead of repeated government intervention is by inventing our own future. What will things be like under headings of personnel, science, economics and social? How will that be reflected in the BDA’s advice to members? What decisions do practices and individuals need to take now for the world of 2030 and beyond?
Some years ago I had to explain to a member that as section secretary I had little or no way of making direct representation, and he would have to approach the LDC or his GDSC rep. His reply, “You’re the “face" of my Trades Union, I have no idea who the other people are, they never come to our meetings and the LDC people are all 100% NHS why can’t you do something?” I felt useless.
The route of feedback from practices to “HQ” remains poor, the communication needs to be improved and to be seen to be improved. Members don’t know who their representatives are or what they do. Clarity is required.
Dentists - if you want someone to represent you then get off your backside, find them, tell them exactly what you want and demand feedback, otherwise there is a large chance that you won’t get it! Don’t ask what your BDA can do for you, ask what you can do for your profession.
BDA - make it easier to contact representatives. Ensure your offer is of interest and relevance to all members. Keep the messages simpler, don’t presume everyone knows everything, continue the website improvement and keep reinventing yourself.
Well YOU Ticked The 'Unprofessional' fox, So What Po You Expect? - That New GDC Survey In Full - By Ex-DentistGoneBadd
Dentistry's Got talents - Which ones, exactly? By @DentistGoneBadd
(An Interview With A Former Member)
The General Dental Council’s work in disciplinary matters is sometimes not fully understood by dental practitioners. The revelations over the past few weeks that the GDC is registering overseas dentists as dental therapists without a thorough check of their practical abilities, that they withheld evidence which resulted in a fraudulent dentist being restored to the dental register, and that they have used private detectives to entrap registrants, has opened the GDC’s registration and disciplinary processes to close scrutiny. These recent stories on the GDC suggest those disciplinary processes to be more mysterious than ever.
GDPUK has been fortunate in being given the opportunity to speak frankly with a recent ex-member of the GDC’s Fitness To Practice panel, which helps determine the professional fate of over 112,000 registrants.
Peter is a clinician with over 28 years of experience in dentistry. He is currently working full-time in private and NHS practice. We have been asked not to reveal his identity.
It sounds like a lot of hard work. What made you want to serve with the GDC?
Serve? An interesting terminology there. The GDC has the statutory function of regulating the profession and whilst to many it seems odd, I wanted to be a part of this. Someone has to do it. I thought it might as well be me. You can stand on the outside and criticise, or you can be on the inside and see how the machine really works
Briefly, what were your duties on the committee on which you served? What is the makeup of the committee on which you served?
I sat on the Fitness To Practise panel and as a consequence, you sat on all the statutory committees. They are independent of the GDC – which is a challenging concept, given the GDC writes the committee guidance. On the FTP panel, you read, listen to and evaluate evidence presented. The civil legal standard is used so you find evidence on ‘the balance of probability.’ I personally believe it should revert back to the criminal standard. Beyond reasonable doubt stops charismatic barristers winning you over.
What training do committee members get?
It really isn't as intense as it should be. There is far too much concentration on ‘soft skills,’ such as communication and people skills, rather than legal understanding. I often felt it lacked any real depth. That said, the whole selection process is (allegedly) designed to select individuals that are able to carry out the workload. I personally doubt that, and feel the recruitment process is biased since the GDC seeks to ensure diversity. That aim is incredibly important since the profession is diverse, yet there is a part of me that is convinced that the recruitment process is flawed for this very reason
What sort of cases did you hear?
I heard cases involving all classes of registrant. They were, in broad terms, clinical or criminal. In addition to this there are health cases. Some were easy, some were extremely challenging due to the nature of the allegations.
Did you feel the cases brought before you were justified?
Ah, well, that’s a very difficult question to answer. In some cases yes, in others, no. When a dental professional is convicted of paedophilia then there's no discussion, but when a registrant is in front of a committee with a huge list of allegations that were clearly gained after the original index complaint, then it becomes difficult to clear the mind. The committee can only hear the evidence presented to it (alongside the allegations) yet I personally struggled with the concept. Indeed, in some cases (more than ever should have been) the original index complaint never even made it into the hearing. This conflicts with my personal sense of justice. The GDC managing to amass a long list of allegations based on its investigation was, and remains, of concern to me.
There are some criticisms that caseworkers can be over zealous when preparing ‘charges’ against registrants. Are these justified?
My personal issue with the caseworkers is that they lack any real knowledge of the profession. It can be reasonably argued that they don't need it to just list allegations, but this argument is fundamentally flawed as their inability to understand what is important and relevant is only dictated by guidelines they work to. The system is evolving with dental professionals now involved, but it is currently still lacking serious input
Do you think the makeup of committee’s is balanced and makes for a ‘just’ system?
Committees have to contain various elements in order to make them work. Prior to 2003 the ‘old school tie network’ led to many cases that were serious, failing the patients. There was a time when committees sat with five members. Nowadays, because of cost-cutting, it is invariably three. (The cost per day, per person plus expenses, is considerable). A three-person committee is unbalanced. It comprises one Lay, one dentist and one Dental Care Professional (DCP). One strong individual can influence the other two in my personal experience and a dominant influence means the case will fall their way. It's inadvertent "bullying" and this is why there is a focus on soft skills in the training process. Reverting to the criminal standard would eliminate this bias and mean that an individual’s influence would be more difficult to exert. It's either that or revert to ensuring committees sit with five members. One strong personality has to try much harder to convince four other members of his view.
Do you feel that decision making is hampered by Lay people?
No. The Lay perspective is very important BUT this must be balanced. I have already suggested that a strong personality can influence a committee. The Lay person is potentially the most at risk yet, again, a five-person committee would reduce this bias.
Quite often, registrants complain that they can also face ‘dishonesty’ charges in addition to the main charge – why are these added?
The dishonesty allegation actually tends to be a "collection" of allegations. It seems to arise from (again) expert evidence where the report writer may suggest that a "thing" couldn't have happened. It tends to be termed ‘inappropriate,’ ‘misleading’ or ‘dishonest.’
This to me seems to be a ‘get you one way or another’ allegation. They are usually listed as individual allegations that seem almost a snare. The GDC has to work to the remit the Professional Standards Authority decides and that overarching organisation seems to take great store in allegations that demonstrate dishonesty. Apparently, it is extremely difficult to remediate someone one who is dishonest. I'll let people make their own minds up on that aspect, but will say, to err is human.
Do you feel registrants are treated fairly in the FTP process?
Yes. Whilst to many from the outside it seems a draconian process, as a tribunal it has to follow English law. It is a quasi-judicial committee and it relies on expert input. As a committee member, you are not party to the build-up of a case but as a process, it is probably far too protracted for the comfort of a registrant.
Is it justified or necessary to go outside the index complaint and delve into all aspects of a dentist’s practice?
In my opinion, no. Now, if there was a very obvious risk to patients then certainly. But one complaint of a seemingly simple problem seems to lead to an escalation of the issues by ‘investigating’ the individual. I personally believe that if the index complaint falls away then the investigation should be stopped. This is not a criminal court. It has no powers other than to stop someone practising dentistry. But, and this is where I struggle, many employers may ask if you have ever been subject to an investigation. It won't appear on any criminal record but you would have to declare it - potentially ruining someone's future prospects because they failed to record someone's smoking habits.
Do you feel lay members fully understand the seriousness of their decisions on the registrant?
That's extremely difficult to answer. I have worked with some outstanding people and a few challenging individuals. One thing they have to learn is that, the consequence of a previous decision needs to be put aside by committee members. You can't let previous decisions regarding a registrant influence your decision. An example would be a registrant convicted of fraud in criminal court, but you are not convinced they were as guilty as the court found them. You must take it at face value. As a committee member you can't hide behind a previous verdict and you can only base decisions on the facts presented.
I think it is important to remember that some Lay members are, in essence, professional committee members and may sit on several tribunals and be extremely competent in what they do. That has a flip side, because a ‘professional’ Lay person then ceases to be truly ‘Lay.’
Did you ever feel that you your views were disregarded or overruled by the GDC or other members of the committee?
Yes. But that isn't always a negative. The whole point of having a minimum of three people sitting is so that a majority decision can be made. Your opinion will be heard but not necessarily agreed on. The GDC never influenced my decisions other than the published guidance (which is a separate question).
Do you think the GDC is currently fit for purpose with regard to disciplinary matters?
It is very easy to be critical and I think we are no different to our nursing/medical colleagues regarding professional regulation. By that I mean as long as there is a process whereby a professional’s conduct is questioned then no one will be happy. I have already raised some points regarding this. I do find it very bizarre that committees sit and hear evidence even though a registrant has said they are not going to attend/engage and indeed, are no longer working within dentistry. I once asked the GDC about the costs of a case, in 2009. A three-day hearing for a dental nurse who was never going to attend (she had actually written in saying they could ‘stick’ dental nursing), yet the committee sat and suspended her for 9 months. It cost in excess of £50k to hear this. I never followed up the individual after the period of suspension ended. When this happens (another area that is far too common) then no, it isn't fit for purpose. That was (at the time) the equivalent of the ARF of 50 dentists.
There is another area that makes me question the ability of the GDC to consider itself fit for purpose. This relates to the whole world of eggshells that is inclusivity and diversity.
The drive for diversity and inclusion is extremely noble and proper but shouldn't be a reason to put people in to the role that are essentially carried by more illuminated individuals on panels. The drive to hit inclusivity targets has skewed recruitment into the role rather than ensuring individuals have the ability and capacity to deal with the huge amount of information they are fed"
Do you think the source of complaints has changed over the years? Are there more fellow registrants reporting on their colleagues as ‘whistleblowers?’ If so, what do you feel their motivations are. Could you estimate the proportion of patient-generated complaints vs dental professional-generated complaints vs those brought by health authorities?
I despise the term "whistleblower" but I do genuinely think that motives vary. They go from genuine concerns, to vexatious ex-employees, to other motivations. There was a time when it wasn't the done thing to criticise another individual’s work. I don't necessarily think this is right but I do think there seems to have been a drop in professional discretion. Simply criticising some previous work for personal gain is shocking.
A committee isn't there to judge whether a complaint is based on that, but you get some that come through and you know that the motivation was all wrong. Vexatious ex-employees should be simply filtered out. Part of the problem is that if someone decides to raise concerns then invariably mud is slung from one side to the other. This leads to bizarre accusations that damage everyone involved.
I think genuine concerns regarding safety of patients is important but those involved in the very early stages of a complaint should be more robust in filtering. When a legal firm is the initiator of a complaint then surely alarm bells relating to a litigation process should be sounding in the GDC s ears.
Do you believe that radical changes are necessary in the GDC? If so, what?
I'm not sure there is a need for radical change. Perhaps what is really needed is consistency. If you look at the turnover of staff at all levels then you realise there is a distinct lack of consistency in the executive function of the regulator. That can only lead to confusion over time.
It's a bit like Chinese whispers I guess. Over time, interpretation of the way things SHOULD be done, is diluted. That said, I am still puzzled why any dental professional would contact the GDC for advice on any matter other than their ARF. The shake-up maybe needs the GDC to again tell dental professionals they do not give advice. Go on, give them a call and ask for advice on something and they give it... especially interpretation of guidance. The only folk you should contact are your indemnity company
Despite the GDC’s stated intentions to reform their disciplinary processes, do you feel they will effect change?
I think change will be forced upon them. I think this is a little similar to something I've already said, without consistency then change will just be a hand grenade that will just cause mayhem. It also depends on what reforms they actually can make. What us registrants want would be very different to what they are allowed to do. The Professional Standards Authority is not blameless in all this. They (the PSA) have instilled a sense of fear in the executive function of the GDC by essentially threatening judicial reviews when it disagrees with a committee’s decision. They are the watchmen watching the watchmen. If they don't like something then they choose to challenge it. Change must happen top down, not bottom up
The GDC has recently been criticised for:
What are your views on these recent controversies, if any?
The GDC should really hang its head in shame over certain aspects of these three areas.
I have read online discussions regarding all of these and have (unsurprisingly) formed an opinion on all three.
With regard to the registration story I read, it suggested that the GDC see no risk from registering overseas trained dentists as dentists despite the fact they may have failed aspects of the normal route of entry on to the register as a dentist. ‘Shocking’ is my only response. How long will it be before such an individual is in front of a committee? Will the committee have the kahunas to criticise the GDC for this? (Committees can criticise the GDC, I once sat on a case where we did and, as was stated in the determination, we would have awarded costs against the GDC if we had the power).
I sat on several cases where private investigators were used. I was always extremely uncomfortable with this process but was assured it was perfectly legitimate to attempt to get a professional to offer something they're not allowed to do. It feels wrong...very wrong and should be stopped and indeed, in cases where this evidence was used, I feel the cases should be re-sat without this evidence.
I'm no lawyer but withholding evidence is surely a miscarriage of justice? Remember it works both ways. In the case that has been highlighted, it has been demonstrated that all is not well at the GDC. Withholding evidence to prevent a hold (adjournment or postponement) is damaging to all parties involved. It's interesting how the GDC has been extremely quiet in not responding to enquiries in this and other areas. That is worrying because stonewalling only increases suspicion.
Do you believe the GDC uses the ARF money effectively?
I have never analysed the GDC accounts although there are many that do. I think there may have been some mismanagement many years ago which left the GDC in a predicament. That aside, the ARF is, for all registrants, far too high. A dental nurse whose skill set is not comparable to that of a general nurse, pays far more yet is probably paid less - shocking and the hike up for dentists was shocking. The GDC is not ostentatious (any more) when providing lunch or accommodation so those outside the organisation that criticise this should be careful. The attempt to reduce costs is noble, but perhaps not severe enough.
Do you believe that it is difficult for individuals to effect change from within? Does the government need to take a role in regulation?
The GDC is attempting to reform but as an outsider it is easy to criticise. That aside, they really only have themselves to blame given that they choose not to answer enquiries and using underhand methods to gather evidence instils no confidence. They perhaps need to be open about their dealings with ministers and health ministry officials and about how they have to engage in order to ensure that the guidance they give reflects the changing nature of dentistry.
Endless consultations seem to only attract a certain type of individual to respond and they will never get a balanced response because that nineteen year-old dental nurse who works from 8 to 8 for £9 per hour just couldn't give a toss. And when she is called in front of a regulator that she isn't aware of other than they want money off her annually, she will just go and do something else if called before a committee. Who wants that stress when you feel like you're the bottom of the pile and getting paid peanuts? You are understandably not going to care. That is possibly where the GDC could easily reform. Look at how it manages dental nurses and dental technicians.
Employees and ex-employees often describe the atmosphere within the GDC as ‘toxic.’ What is your view?
I wasn't an employee. No FTP member is, so my fleeting visits to the various GDC locations would not give me an opportunity to assess the working environment adequately. But I do take websites that people post these comments on, with a pinch of salt. A vexatious ex-employee may put toxic postings on just to be mischievous or air a grudge.
Why did you give up your role with the GDC?
I realised that I had "done my bit" it is very easy to stagnate in the role. I think I intimated earlier, that there are essentially professional committee members. They're not all Lay. Whilst it is important to have a broad church on committees it is somewhat bizarre that academics and non-clinical registrants are making decisions about care standards in an aggressive UDA system or on private practitioners just trying to earn a living.
Now you are no longer involved with the GDC, do you have any views on the current state of regulation and the ‘fear’ that is said to be gripping the UK’s dental professionals?
Neglect, fraud and certain things need addressing for sure but sanctioning an individual for a speeding offence really pushes the remit. The GDC says these committees as not punishing individuals but I beg to differ. Suspend an individual for a year and you have denied them their income. These sanctions are punitive in even the simplest form. It was becoming, and continues to be, farcical – leading to protracted hearings for trivial matters that should be dealt with locally.
Back to the subject of reform, the GDC perhaps should engage an ombudsman in more cases to decide what the complainant REALLY wants. If it is retribution or just a matter of "where there's blame there’s a claim" then that doesn't protect the public. Look at the length of determinations for even trivial matters, amazing. The Professional Standards Authority forced that. No, I don't want to be a part of that anymore.
With regard to the culture of fear that has developed in dentistry over recent years - the professional indemnity companies are not playing ball either. Their fees are extortionate yet they have the audacity to criticise the GDC. In 28 years, I have had to contact my indemnification company just once. I wasn't impressed.
I actually believe the indemnity companies are mostly to blame for the culture of fear. Their courses are toxic and full of fear. “If you don't do X or Y then the GDC will have a case.” Having watched many, many cases I can hand on heart say, I often shook my head at the really useless arguments they would instruct the barristers to present. They use ‘expert’ evidence to counter GDC evidence rather than peer to peer evidence. The experts are invariably academics or specialists that are way out of touch with the pressures of general dental practice. There is a massive disparity there.
Finally, I would sometimes find the hypocrisy at the GDC amazing. The biggest example that STILL irks me to this day is in the Maintaining Standards document pre-2006. It clearly stated that “a dentist must not work to a target driven standard.”
Because of the new UDA-based contract, the GDC had to make sure that particular passage wasn’t included in the guidance following the introduction of the new contract.
And the GDC is independent of Government interference you say?
They've Been At It Again! - Your Weekly Update To The Activities Of Those Wacky GDC Folk. By @DentistGoneBadd
Dentistry is tough, I have written that phrase as an opening to several pieces in the past. Things haven’t got any easier, in fact quite the opposite. There is a crisis of confidence in many young, and not so young, dentists.
>A High Court Judge has criticised the General Dental Council’s Professional Conduct procedures after highlighting a “serious procedural irregularity” which allowed a fraudulent dentist to be restored to the dental register.
"I Vaguely Remember Him. Was That The One With The 'Tache?"
What Will Be YOUR legacy?
When You Take Your Problem Patients time With You - Treating Members Of Your Family, By DentistGoneBadd
The Charity helps dental students, dentists and their families when they face hardship, supporting those who do not have the funds to pay for some of the normal things in life, ranging from contributions towards food and daily living costs, funds to improve the quality of life for those retired due to ill health, to more specific needs like paying someone’s annual retention fee or indemnity, to help them get back on their feet and into the profession.
For many years Hull LDC stayed away from the national conference of Local Dental Committees (LDCs). Our preconception was that whilst the Conference might be good for networking, it punched below its weight. We were wrong.
LDC Conference is a fantastic forum, which provides the opportunity to debate Motions, to come to a consensus and to influence policy. In 2017 we saw the light and we decided to table a motion suggesting that we should solicit the support of Local Authorities for water fluoridation as part of Starting Well (SW) Programmes in relevant areas. We were basically “dipping our toes” in the (fluoridated) water. After all, SW is about investing in programmes targeted at the 13 worst areas for child dental health in England where need is greatest, including our “back yard” - Hull.
The result of this motion was that it was supported by Conference – but not unanimously.
We’ve learned a lot along the way – including the importance of making the motion clearer which would have helped to avoid the voting result. Some delegates wanted CWF included as a short-term strategy!
The LDC also started to use the letters pages of the excellent BDJ to get their messages across. In response to a letter from Paul Connett of Fluoride Action Network1 Hull LDC2 highlighted the lack of credible evidence for his points that fluoride at 1ppm is chemophobic, neurotoxic and toxic as well as the emotionally charged language. This letter exchange was two and half years ago and similar “tactics” remain the thrust of the Fluoride Action Network3,4 position on CWF.
In 2018 we decided to build on the first motion and call for funding reform for CWF- because Councils simply don’t have the resources to implement schemes following years of central government budget cuts. This is also fair because as the motion explains, the majority of the return on investment5 falls to NHSE.
This time the motion was unanimously supported and the BDA picked up the baton:
The successful motion reflected the support for CWF at the sharp end of Primary Dental Care and created opportunities for the BDA to take forward issues generated by LDCs. Conference motions are effective and with support from the LDC community and BDA leadership, the momentum for change is building. This is huge credit to LDCs whose members work at the coalface and who over three years have supported CWF motions again and again.
The letter the BDA refers to was sent to Simon Stevens. It called for the reallocation of the recurrent costs of CWF schemes from Councils to the NHS. Interestingly, this concept was further developed in this year’s Prevention Green Paper where it was suggested that we need to look for ways of removing barriers to CWF. Councils should be encouraged to come forward and seek cost-sharing partnerships6.
In 2019 Hull LDC built on both of the previous motions to ask conference to support those local authorities moving forward with CWF.
Once again Conference supported the motion 100%.
At the beginning of 2019 Hull LDC began to work with the British Fluoridation Society and the BDA to form the National CWF Network. This alliance now has a large membership of dental organisations and a growing membership outside dentistry including the National Children’s Bureau (NCB). The partnership with the NCB is especially powerful, as this organisation exists to support change in society and deliver better childhood.
So we also began to learn that forming wider alliances off the back of campaigning for CWF could be powerful and effective. Working with partners or campaigning with fellowship is the way forward. The LDC national conference is a great organisation and an effective platform for change - it just took Hull LDC a while to work this out. So over time campaigning with fortitude has grown in to campaigning with fellowship.
1). Water fluoridation :Is fluoride chemophobic? P. Connett
2). Water fluoridation: It really is this simple: Hull LDC
3). Fluoride Action Network
5). Return on investment of oral health improvement programmes for 0-5 year olds
6). Advancing our health: prevention in the 2020s
Please Don't Make Me Cluck Like A Chicken" - Hypnosis In Dentistry. By @DentistGoneBadd
"Beware That Patient's The HS2" - When Patients Act Like Express Trains. By DentistGoneBadd
April 1st 2035. On her 40th birthday Alice was taking stock of her career and professional life. Her initial dislike of working as a dentist for GleamDent had mellowed, she was still there, and life was good. The dental arm of a European health corporate had treated her well and she had responded by being a good employee. Her early days of ersatz self-employment had been swept away in John McDonnell’s first coalition budget.
The job had privileges including free health care, crèche and kindergarten facilities at work for her two children and six weeks paid holiday a year. In addition the profit sharing scheme allowed all employees to purchase shares in the company and provided bonuses related to personal performance and length of service.
The deep economic depression in the wake of the exit from the EU had a profound effect. Many universities failed financially and tertiary education was re-structured. Vocational degrees were reimagined and medicine, veterinary science and dentistry became graduate entry, usually via the new modular medical science degree.
Teaching in dentistry took place through an apprentice like system at one of the four English dental schools each of which was associated with a corporate body. Students, or dental cadets, were taught theory “in block” and practiced in outreach clinics. The cadets received their education, accommodation and a stipend in return for their commitment to the career structure for 10 years after graduation.
Experiments with on-line delivery of all teaching at undergrad and postgrad levels had failed when it was seen that isolation and lack of personal contact contributed to mental health problems. Psychometric assessments became as important as practical evaluations before prospective students were admitted to the course.
The financial crash led to the creation of a new National Health Care system, run mostly by large groups and funded by clear and compulsory insurance cover. All practices were effectively privatised and during the last decade the, quaint, old style of practice based in converted houses had nearly disappeared. They were replaced either by stand alone new builds in office blocks or, more often, in “Hurley centres” alongside medical colleagues with the onus fixed on “putting the mouth back in the body”.
Some of Alice’s friends were exceptions. These “Artisan Dentists” had solitary practices where they worked with only a nurse and some even did their own laboratory work. Alice herself had relied on digital technology for all her restorative work for a dozen years.
These Artisan outliers were not able to sign up to any of the main health insurers and depended upon on direct payments from patients. Like many of her colleagues Alice had been suspicious of their approach but after spending a few hours with an old friend had found the personal attitude interesting but not attractive.
Every GleamDent treatment pod was well equipped. Magnification was standard, the lighting excellent and state of the art patient distraction systems, long proved to be essential to obtain relaxation and co-operation were a huge improvement on local anaesthetic alone.
In the early days Alice, like many others, was uncomfortable to find that direct feeds from her loupes, in-surgery cameras and monitors meant that all clinical and non-clinical procedures were recorded. Feedback from the sensors measuring Blood Pressure, pulse and cranial activity, of dentist and patient was also monitored. It was easier to defend the increasingly rare allegations of poor treatment, and operator quality could be assessed and constructive feedback given. Plus, reflective practice in such a practical subject was easier when one could see one’s own work and reactions.
Since 2030 much of the adversarial legal system had been taken over by Artificial Intelligence, this removed the need for involvement of the discredited General Dental Council.
Vaccinations against caries and aggressive forms of periodontal disease plus genetic intervention had resulted in 95% of people being bacterial disease free, with ideal jaw and teeth relationships.
However there was a TSL (tooth surface loss) “epidemic”, due to people living on a 90% plant and fruit based diet. The consequences were that many people needed extensive reconstructions during their lifetime. These were mostly performed, like implants and orthodontics, by dental robots, using computerised treatment plans and 4-D printer generated restorations.
Alice found that these cases fulfilling and challenging. The rest of the time she spent supervising via the in-surgery monitors and mentoring junior colleagues whether they are therapists, dentists or students.
Would she choose dentistry for her children? She already had, thus earning herself a share of the GleamDent finder’s bursary.
Like many dentists I know, I absolutely love new gadgets and innovations in dentistry. I was therefore excited when the Daily Mail headline proclaimed “The End Of Dental Fillings” the other day. Of course, it isn’t. I couldn’t accurately estimate how many times I’ve read “The End Of Dental Fillings” or “The End Of The Dental Drill” over the years, only to have my hopes crushed by scientific reality and human trials.
Professor Damien Walmsley squished my hopes like a bug when he projected that the in vitro growth of an enamel-like material by researchers at Zhejiang University’s School of Medicine wouldn’t be ready for practical use for “ten to twenty years.” Drat! I’m still waiting for a fully-formed Boots own home tooth-growing kit promised by researchers back in the early 1980’s.
This latest breakthrough does sound exciting though. I won’t bore you with the details but the Chinese scientists found that a material composed of calcium phosphate ion clusters could be used to produce a precursor layer to induce the epitaxial crystal growth of enamel apatite. This then mimics the biomineralization crystalline-amorphous frontier of the hard tissue developed in nature. They also found the CPIC-caused epitaxial growth recovered the enamel strength, with H and E values of 3.84 ± 0.20 GPa and 87.26 ± 3.73 GPa, respectively. I was staggered. Oops. I bored you.
I’m such a sucker for gadgets of any description, I once couldn’t help buying them. Years ago, the practice manager of my own practice banned me from going to Dental Showcase for my own financial safety. I seem to recall that was triggered by me coming back from a show with my arms full of boxes of disposable spring-loaded BPE probes, which I never ever used. Just last night I was glued to the Apple iPhone launch event, salivating, more like drooling over a phone that looks identical to the one in my pocket except the new one has three knobbly bits on the back.
I think I can say that during my career I kept fully abreast of new developments and never feared embracing a piece of kit with a warning beep built in. I don’t know if that was a good thing or a bad thing, a total waste of money, or just plain scary.
I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity after about four years post-qualification, to work with the dentist who first inspired me to become a dentist. My dentist and his partner were two forward thinking professionals who were constantly on expensive courses and they picked up hundreds of tips which they imparted to me and the other associate, as well as spend thousands on bits of kit which they occasionally let us use.
One day, the senior partner appeared at my side, wearing a pleading face, despite the fact he was about to give me the opportunity to try out his latest purchase. The new addition to the practice’s armamentarium was a crown removal system, which I believe is still available. I can’t remember the name of the product, but I can say it was incredibly effective - maybe TOO effective for my liking. After giving me quick instruction on how to use the device, I suddenly found a consultant medical surgeon in my chair, one of my boss’s best private patients.
The ‘device’ was basically a cube of what looked like solidified Rowntrees jelly. You may have come across the material – I don’t want to teach my grandmother to suck eggs (to be honest it was the only way my grandmother could eat eggs because I made her dentures) - but it was a very hard material and had to be softened in hot water. After it reached a nice pliable consistency, the material was placed by the crown and surrounding teeth on the occlusal surfaces and the patient was then instructed to bite down and hold it. The idea was that you let the material cool and once it was set, the patient opened the mouth violently. The desired result was a detached crown in the set jelly.
I could detect that the crown in this particular patient (an upper right 4) was very slightly wobbly but just as I placed the material, I realised that the unrestored UR3 and UR5 were also slightly wobbly. My blood ran cold. I was already committed and I braced myself for the embarrassment of having a consultant surgeon let out a blood-curdling scream as his teeth were ripped out without local anaesthetic, and the trial of having to replant them back into the sockets. Mercifully, only the crown became detached and I marched the patient back downstairs to the private part of the practice. Afterwards, my senior male colleague said “Phew, close call. Well done, my dear.”
It was while I was at this practice that I was also introduced to a miracle product.
The bane of any dentist’s life, in addition to all the other banes, is failed anaesthesia. Particularly miserable, is the inferior dental block, especially when you have a patient who doesn’t like needles. My two bosses came back from a course one Monday and announced that all our blocky worries were about to be over. Ten days or so later, the other associate and me were introduced to something called Lido-Hyal. The drug was administered in a dental syringe the same as anaesthetic and it worked by virtue of it containing hyaluronidase. The enzyme facilitated permeability within the tissues so the anaesthetic could penetrate easily to where it was needed. I can’t honestly recall which way round I administered it, but I think I probably gave the local first, followed by the Lido-Hyal. Even the most resistant patients in the practice succumbed to deep pulpal anaesthesia within a couple of minutes and it seemed worries about local failure was banished forever. The only contraindication was that you couldn’t use if there was any suspected infection around for fear of spreading it deeper into the tissues.
I pretty much used Lido exclusively for ID blocks and it never let me down. The problem with Lido was that it wasn’t licenced in the UK and it had to be imported from Switzerland. When I moved to my own practice in the early 90’s, I found that I couldn’t live without it, although I used it rarely. I had probably about three shipments until one day I received a caution from Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise henchmen, who issued a stern warning and a demand for the import tax I’d apparently been wilfully avoiding. I hadn’t, I was just someone who hadn’t previously imported anything in his life and was also a completely incompetent businessman. That put me off, as did an off-the-cuff remark from my associate who reckoned that using Lido would dissolve patient’s condyles. It never did, but it planted the fake news seed and that was enough for me. I never used it again, for fear of turning local patients into drooling, rubber-jawed yokels.
Before my bosses discovered Lido, one of them experimented with intra-osseous anaesthesia. He reckoned it was great for ‘hot’ pulps and avoided the post-op dribbling associated with ID blocks. I never tried the technique myself, the demonstration patient being enough for me. I think the system I saw being used isn’t available any longer, but it involved using a hollow trephining drill to sink a hole in the cortical bone that went through the cancellous bone of the alveolus. The outer part of the trephining drill was left in situ and the local was administered through the hollow tube. My boss reckoned the procedure was less painful than delivering an ID block, but I saw the patient squirm when he numbed the intra septal gingivae and saw the patient slowly wriggle down the chair when his cortical plate was being drilled. I’m sure it works perfectly well in the right hands but it turned my stomach, and apparently his. The system was in a cupboard gathering dust within what seemed a fortnight.
An innovation that I DID think might change my professional life, was jet anaesthesia. I was an early adopter, grabbing jet anaesthesia enthusiastically, with both hands. You needed to use both hands because if you didn’t, the retort was like that I would imagine you’d experience from an AK-47. The patients loved the idea of no needles, but they didn’t like the thud and kick-back from the unit, despite the ineffective rubbery cushion on the end. I found the unit difficult to use, particularly getting the large business end flat against the buccal bone of the upper molar areas. The main problem was although it got the soft tissues numb, it rarely got the pulp numb enough to work on the tooth. Most patients ended up screaming for ‘the proper needle.’ Having read a couple of papers on the modern units, it would seem they are pretty ineffective, though I would be first to admit it could have been operator error in my case.
I was also one of the first customers for surgical loupes with built in fibre-optic lights. These particular units were built in the USA and cost a packet. They were wonderful, but… In those days the light generating unit was a box which to my recall was about the same size as a small fridge which sat on the work surface behind me. The loupes were connected to the light unit by a reasonably lengthy fibre-optic cable and to be fair, it allowed quite a bit of free movement – except if an idiot was wearing the loupes. One day a patient asked me a question during treatment. I couldn’t make out what he was saying and I pulled my mask off and moved to face him so I could lip read as well, forgetting I was still tethered. Fortunately, that act didn’t pull the light unit off the work surface because my nurse dived on it, but my loupes were pulled off and they smashed on the floor. After a couple of weeks on their holidays in the USA, they returned as new. The kind suppliers repaired them free of charge. About two months later, they took a flight to the States again – pretty much the same reason. This time there was a modest charge with an accompanying note asking me if I would like a representative from the company to come and give me a free demonstration on how to use the loupes. I thanked them, but politely refused their offer. My motto over the years seems to have inadvertently been, ‘Once bitten, twice bitten,’ so when my loupes, which I adored, finally hit the deck again, I gave up on them. Eventually I found a local optician who gave me decent magnification in prescription specs, which served me well till I retired.
There were quite a few gadgets I DID resist over the years. Lasers were one of the innovations I shunned. I knew of a good practitioner locally who had spent a lot of money on one and shelved it within a month, advertising for it sale in a dental journal for nearly a year before the ad disappeared. I had heard he failed to shift it.
The early Cerec machines I also dismissed, though mainly on the grounds of cost. In my opinion, the results I saw when they first came out had all the aesthetic beauty of a toilet bowl created by Armitage Shanks. I’d call the shades available in the early days as ‘Comfort Station White.’
Ozone healing was the other ‘breakthrough’ I pretty much ignored. It was promoted originally as being effective way of treating early caries, particularly in pits and fissures. Being old-fashioned, I preferred to witness that I’d dealt effectively with the caries and regarded ozone treatment as snake oil. I note that it’s not currently recommended for the treatment of decay, by NICE.
As for ‘breakthroughs’ like the elimination of filling and drilling, I am a sceptic. Back in the 80’s, at the welcome address by the Dean of my dental school, he told us that caries would be eliminated in the developed world within ten year and that our futures lay in the ‘Third World.’ It was a pretty dour introduction to dental school. I note we are still waiting for the caries vaccine he promised.
I’ve just noticed a tiny chip in the back of my mobile. I think I need a new phone. The iPhone 11 looks nice.
Negative reviews can be upsetting. Could the answer be an App? "We'll Be With You In Ten Minutes Mate" Should We Adopt The Uber Model? By @DentistGoneBadd
One of the main tenets of Professor Onora O’Neill’s arguments around the theme of trust is that we must aim to have more trust in the trustworthy but not in the untrustworthy. She says, “I aim positively to try not to trust the untrustworthy.”
Which brings around the questions. Who can you trust? Who do you trust? And then by extension, Who can trust you? Who does trust you?
All of us exist in different circles. At the centre is the Circle of Control. Sometimes when I talk to dentists and their teams they say that they feel they have little control over their lives, I can understand those feelings but they are not correct. We have control on where our focus is from moment to moment. We choose and can control our reactions to events and to others. We control where and how we spend our time and energy. We control how we turn up every day. We also control how trustworthy we are.
The next circle is The Circle of Influence. In here are the things that concern you and that you are able to Influence. When we look at this closely many of the things that cause us concern are beyond our control and influence.
Finally the outer circle is the Circle of Concern. In here lie all the things that concern you in your work and life, including health, family, finances, the general economy and so on. Everything inside the circle matters to you, everything outside the circle is of no concern to you.
The lesson around the circles is to “Focus on what you can control and don’t waste energy on the things that you cannot.” To take a topical theme, it is very unlikely that any of us can control the outcome of the UK’s proposed Brexit deal - yet many are losing sleep, getting anxious, losing friends and letting it dominate their thinking.
To return to trust. Dentists often say they feel they have lost trust in successive governments, in the GDC and, increasingly, their colleagues. They will often give me evidence of things that have happened where their trust has been “betrayed” by an associate, a principal or an employee. When a patient makes a complaint we feel our trust has been betrayed in some shape or form and it hurts, of course it does.
Often when we analyse the situation we find that the relationship had not been founded on trust, that there was not complete transparency between the parties. In the past when deference was given to professionals there occurred “blind trust” which now, quite rightly, plays little role in our lives.
Unfortunately too many of our relationships have to be with the slab like nature of organisations, where trust is replaced by unintelligent accountability. This is based on managerial concepts of controlling performance by setting targets for individuals and institutions. Success, or not, is measured by whether targets are attained.
For the majority of dental team members, gaining trust with patients and each other is built in gradual stages. The speed depends upon the individuals involved. Bud Ham described the stages involved as a five-step process, Acquaintance, Rapport, Mutual Acceptance, Mutual Respect and Intimacy. The requirements for each stage are “Others’ Conscious Attention, “Friendliness”, “Shared History”, “Disclosed Beliefs” but for the final stage we need to take the risk of sharing “Secrets”.
Most teaching on good communication is “sales based” and stops at “Rapport”. I think it’s only just starting and would suggest that if our relationships are to be trustworthy they must, as Bud says, get closer to the Risk of Intimacy; emotional, mental or spiritual intimacy.
To return to Trust and to wrap things up.
Well, what do YOU think would help the NHS General Dental Service Survive? A It More Posh Would Be Nice - Saving The NHS by @DentistGoneBadd
They sell tooth whitening kits on the Internet. You can even buy temporary crown kits from the web. Guess what you can buy now? Brace Yourself - DIY Orthodontics Via Webcam By ADentistGoneBadd
Believe it or not, it’s just over ten years since the CQC came into being.
I know! It doesn’t seem five minutes since the CQC burst into existence. Sometimes it seems like it’s been hanging over dentistry forever - like the extended impact winter that wiped the dinosaurs out after that postulated asteroid crash-landed without warning – which was a bit like the CQC itself really.
In England, the CQC is the independent regulator for the quality and safety of care, although to many practitioners, it’s more regarded as a major irritant – another regulatory body to which you have to kowtow, pay an exorbitant fee and produce a forest’s worth of paperwork.
I vaguely remember that the CQC landed on dentistry’s doorstep in about 2011. I was a practice owner in those days and I remember only too clearly, spending most of my spare time writing policies to fulfil forthcoming CQC requirements and being too busy to notice I could have just downloaded them from the internet.
I didn’t have any direct contact with the CQC until I had to go down to one of the organisation’s regional headquarters in the Midlands, for the registered manager’s interview, sometime in 2012. I seem to remember then having to go again a few months later, when the bizarre individual who was about to buy my practice had to have his registered manager’s interview and we had to tell the CQC how we were going to effect the ownership changeover. Naively, I had thought he would simply give me the dosh, and I would skip over the horizon, happily whistling the ABBA hit, Money Money Money. But no, the CQC wanted to make it more complicated and we had to outline our contingency plans for provision of treatment if the practice was consumed by a flood or a volcano. I thought I’d made that clear at my first interview – canoes and a Dyson.
I finalised my practice sale in 2013 so I’ve had no real exposure to CQC fees since, but I seem to remember a registration fee of £1500 or thereabouts. I had a quick Google this morning and there nowadays seems to be a complicated formula for working out how much dental practices have to pay in fees, based on the number of chairs the practice has, and if you are insane enough to work at more than one site.
I remember that there was a lot of resentment among dental practice owners around
2011-2012 at the introduction of the CQC to the dental field. Many questioned the need for yet another authority to oversee the profession. We’d already got the Health and Safety Executive, the Primary Health Care Trusts (as they were then) and the General Dental Council. Did we REALLY need another?
Yes. We certainly did.
Over the 19 years I had my practice, I had only a couple of informal routine visits from an NHS dental practice advisor. Near the introduction of CQC registration, I had a visit from the area infection control coordinator (until that point I didn’t know such a person existed) to ensure we were complying with HTM-01-05. As it happened, we weren’t - a sink in the decontamination room was in the wrong place and we had to move it to comply with the rules. Apart from that, there was no real oversight of the practice. In most of my ownership days, we still had the random checks from the RDO where the Dental Practice Board would choose a few patients for inspection at the local correction facility (as I liked to call the community dental clinic), but that was it. What went on in your practice was very much your own affair. Nobody randomly checked to see if you were boiling the instruments properly in new saucepans, or diligently spraying the reusable patient bibs with Febreze.
As it happened (and it was probably more luck than judgement), apart from a few bits of paperwork we needed to spruce up, we were pretty near compliant before the CQC came-a-calling. But having worked in a number of practices as an associate before I bought my own place, I can attest that there were a lot of places that would have really struggled to come up to basic CQC expectations, let alone those required by the CQC.
I will describe ONE such practice that I worked at.
It was 1990 and I’d been qualified a couple of years. I joined an old established practice on the Cotswolds border as an associate. The practice had five surgeries and was manned by a husband and wife who were the owners, a long-term associate, a hygienist and moi. The bosses had taken over from two very old school and respected dentists, one of whom appeared to have been grandfathered on to the dental register from his primary job as a barber and blood-letter.
The practice was set in a grand Georgian terraced house, and once you went above the surgeries on the first floor, it appeared that the last vacuum cleaner ever to be used on the 2nd and 3rd floors, was the Batty-Fang Carpet Beater 1900. I never saw those floors during my interview, and neither did I see my surgery. When I turned up for the interview, my surgery was in use by the hygienist (apparently) and I couldn’t see into it, the door being solid wood. When I arrived for my first day of work, my surgery was decorated in the style of a 1940’s London Underground station lavatory. Every square inch of the walls, ceiling and floor were tiled in a faded turquoise and the pipes for the aspirator and services lay on top of the floor, presenting a tripping hazard to anyone entering the room. I found out later in the day that the practice was supposed to be haunted. The legend went that the house was originally owned by a well-to-do family and the man of the house had an affair with the housemaid, who I shall call ‘Flora.’ When it all went pear-shaped and Flora became pregnant and was shamed, she hung herself in my surgery (which was the kitchen originally – the fireplace was still in the one wall). Her feet would have dangled over the reclining headrest. It’s another story, but my associate colleague heard Flora singing late one night on the top floor, and truly I saw an outline of her brushing her hair through a window, one dark winter’s afternoon.
After a week I could stand no more. I discovered that Tanya the hygienist only worked in the practice two days a week and although not spectacular, it at least had an acceptable, if dirty wall-covering. I asked if I could swap rooms and poor Tanya found herself in the lavatory. She never thanked me. I asked the practice owners if I could decorate the room myself and at my expense. The bosses agreed. I did it in a nice bright pink and I put some decorative borders up. The husband came in first thing on the Monday after I had decorated, put his head around the door and said without a hint of humour: “It looks like a bleeding tart’s boudoir in here.”
Unfortunately, the equipment was as old as the building and the delivery unit was the size of a modest Buckingham Palace fridge and it was about as manoeuvrable as trying to get a Dalek up the stairs. It had polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride (Bakelite) control switches and buttons and piping that had been repaired by shortening so often, when you moved the drills in a patient’s mouth, the unit was dragged with it. In the two years I was there, I never saw an engineer come in to service the equipment (not that the spare parts were still made for the units). I’m sure it would never have come through a thorough PAT test with flying or even submerged colours. My unit had a dodgy connection with the handpieces and every now and then there would be an explosion of air and what remained of the air-tubing would fly off and snake wildly about the room like a twerking cobra. I point blank refused to have anything to do with fiddling about with the equipment and so my nurse would go and fetch the husband. I REALLY want to name him, but I can’t, so I’ll call him Boris. Anyway, Boris would invariably come with a pair of scissors in his hand and a cannister of sturdy floss, and tie the tubing back on to the handpiece coupling until the perished rubber broke again.
Fortunately, the CQC also ensure premises are safe and up to the mark these days. Boris’s place wasn’t. I doubt that the electrics of the practice had been checked since Thomas Edison was a lad. One day I was doing a full denture try in. I had just given a deaf lady a mirror so she could have a good look and the small, white, straight set up. There was suddenly a loud bang and a flash from behind her. A Bakelite electrical socket (without anything plugged in) had just exploded with no provocation. I jumped and my nurse shrieked, but the patient just sat there wondering if the shade was maybe a little bit dark. She even carried on looking intensely at the denture while Boris ran into the room behind her with a fire extinguisher and started spraying powder all over the place. I can’t remember off hand if the socket was ever dealt with afterwards. We were probably told never to use it again.
One of the worst incidents that happened at this place and inspired me to look for a job elsewhere was when I was treating a patient and Boris’s nurse flew in and said “Can you give Mr Aguecheek a hand…NOW!”
I went into the lavatory-surgery to find Boris was struggling to keep a child anaesthetised. “Just pop the E out for me” he shouted. I went cold but did it. I hadn’t realised until that point that he was doing child general anaesthetics acting as operator and anaesthetist. I knew for a fact that his nurse wasn’t trained at all, being a newby. I rarely lost my temper, but told him as soon as the opportunity arose, that he was never to involve me in GA’s again.
But that probably wasn’t the worst of it. Oh no. I discovered while I was working my notice, that Boris and his wife Priscilla didn’t dispose of sharps through a clinical waste company. He apparently used to box them up and dispose of them just as the local tip was shutting and it was getting dark. I found that out from one of the receptionists as I was having a chat between patients. I had only just muttered “That is absolutely disgusting” to turn round to find Priscilla was standing behind me. Well it WAS disgusting and again, I told them that I would have to report them to the local Family Practitioner’s Committee (as it was then) if I witnessed them doing it again.
Suffice to say, they also ignored employment laws. A trainee nurse who had gotten fed up with £2.40 per hour they paid, handed in her notice. At the end of the first week of her fortnight’s notice, they withheld her wages, only giving them to her after the rest of the nurses and I, threatened to strike. After I put my own notice in, I found two of my monthly payments were delayed and Boris used to sneak out of the practice so he didn’t have to see me. He worked on the first floor and I was told by his nurse that he daily tiptoed down the stairs quietly so I wasn’t aware he was leaving. One morning, I finished early and waited for him. I flew out and ran at him, catching him halfway up the stairs. I’m not a big bloke, but when I get angry, I can make myself big. When he came back from lunch, he gave me two cheques.
The thing that was interesting here, and it accounts for the fact that I am not impressed by people on committees is that both Boris and Priscilla were ‘upstanding’ members of the local dental community. Both were big in the British Dental Association locally, and both had been LDC members, yet they operated like that.
So do we need the CQC?
Yes we do. The pally pally relationship they must have had with the local dental practice advisor obviously didn’t address major problems with their practice. In these days where we are all faced with a torrent of potential litigation every day, at least complying with the high standards set by the CQC reduces risks marginally and prevents inadvertent swamping by an avalanche.
But it all turned out okay in the end for Boris and Priscilla.
They both dead now.
Removing a pair of latex gloves in a single movement with a “pop” is an art form and takes practice. Two deciduous teeth out, bite on this, a satisfying pop and I’m marching through to reception to take a call. “Mike Lennon here” said the voice at the end of the line. The last time I heard that voice was on the child dental health clinic at Manchester University way back in 1984.
So hop into the De Lorean for a quick spin. Mike, regional director of dental public health, was affectionately christened “Boss Hog” for his striking similarity to the character in The Dukes of Hazard and his straight talking. Fast-forward to 2012 and Mike, a Chairman of the British Fluoridation Society (BFS), had read my letter in the British Dental Journal and wanted to make contact with Hull LDC. The BFS as a Group are world experts on fluoridation and were keen to help and advise.
In 1984 Orwellian language, Mike talked in “old speak” and in 2012 he wanted to hear about my theory that CWF had indeed fallen in to a “memory hole”. Mike must have done something right at Manchester in 1984. Tom Robson leading the CWF campaign in the North East in 2019 is also one of Mike’s Manchester graduates. As Tom says – we all have the same hairstyle now.
Returning to the TV theme, the BFS are the Dental Public Health equivalent of the ‘New Tricks’ retired detective team. Not wishing to be age-ist, certainly mostly 65 plus but all of them with brains the size of planets and huge commitment. They have forgotten more about fluoridation than we have learned over the last seven years and, to be very honest, without them the towel would have gone in years ago. And boy they work hard at it. To say the BFS are inspirational is an understatement.
Mike was, however, a realist. Having been round the proverbial fluoridation block – the F-block - for many years he wanted to know if Hull LDC were in it for the long haul. I think we convinced him we were.
Alan Johnson was one of Hull’s MPs at the time and still the only Secretary of State for Health to state his clear unequivocal support for CWF so Mike suggested I contact him and try and set up a meeting in Hull to get the ball rolling. At this point in time the F-Word was not exactly a thought crime but it tended to be hidden in a “basket of measures” in new speak terms.
We were going for direct action – so we sent out a letter inviting local councilors to a meeting on Oral Health in the City to discuss how to improve the situation.
So in attendance at the Hull Ionians Rugby Club we had: a former Secretary of State for Health, several Councillors, NHSE Dental Commissioners, PHE representatives and this was the moment when Hull LDC made it’s pitch beside the pitch.
It was an important first step in bringing CWF to the attention of local Councillors who, at the end of the day, have the final say on policy. This is only right and proper. After all, targeted fluoridation is a local issue. The challenge for Hull LDC was describing the challenges we face daily, the poor oral health, the high numbers of child GAs, the very poor child dental health statistics, all in human terms and offering CWF as part of the solution because it is safe and effective. Councillors want to do the right thing but are also nervous about doing the wrong thing. It takes time and an attentive audience to provide the science and to reassure that most of the “googled” information needs to be critically evaluated. The best reassurance though existed across the Humber where parts of North Lincolnshire have a fluoridation scheme. As is often the case with CWF – the numbers speak for themselves.
The meeting went well and we knew we had Councillors who were supportive and understood the benefits fluoridation could and would bring to the City. But progress seems agonizingly slow, tedious and frustrating for Dentists at the front line of Primary Care. In fact it is a necessary part of following the correct procedure and rightly so.
So, in the meantime, Hull LDC chose some direct action. We pledged to try and raise CWF at every opportunity and at any meeting we attended. So we quizzed Andrew Lansley at the BDA Conference and asked questions around fluoridation on every possible occasion. Hull LDC members attended an anti-fluoridation meeting in Hull and had the first of many encounters with the “Ministry of Truth” which bottomed out at CWF turning the public in to waste disposal units for the aluminum industry and boosting the profits of the Rockefeller pharmaceutical companies. By the end many of the more neutral in the audience were leaving incredulous. At first we were the “odd” ones at professional meetings but over the next few years we could sense that slowly but surely the F-word was no longer being avoided or whispered but was slowly making it’s way out of the basket of measures to become a single measure in it’s own right.
Slowly the “double speak “ of CWF being recognised as being one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20thcentury (1). but being too “hard” was being countered and challenged 2+2=4.
Ten great public health achievements - Us 1900-1999
Community water flouridation a vital 21st century public health intervention
Have you ever regretted a decision? Have you ever leapt at a chance only to end up slipping on a banana skin? That pretty much describes my dental career. "Do I Get Another Go?" Rethinking A Dental Career After Retirement By @DentistGoneBadd
Considering online marketing it's useful to look at:
For a dental practice website to be effective in attracting the right type of new patients we need both traffic and conversions. In previous articles we’ve looked at various forms of traffic optimisation as well as conversion optimisation and e-mail marketing… In this final article we will take a brief look at social media which you may notice appears in both traffic and conversion optimisation.
Everyone knows that the best form of new patient attraction is word-of-mouth marketing, social media is simply word-of-mouth marketing on steroids. Social media gives us the ability to communicate with the widest number of people in one go.
In order to understand social media marketing and relationship building we need to understand some basic business marketing theory.
In a product-based industry (which dentistry is NOT) consumers can evaluate the product before purchasing by trying it out in the store. They can also take back that product after purchase. Marketing for a product is about encouraging the consumer to make a snap decision, product marketing is therefore special deals, offers and incentives such as buy one get one free, 50% off sale today etc.
This is what is known as transactional marketing.
Dentistry on the other hand is very definitely a predominately service-based industry. Let’s take a white filling for example, consumers are not able to evaluate what that filling is going to look like prior to purchasing, nor, after you have completed it and if they dislike it are they able to request you put back any removed tooth and give them back their decay back!
Because of this basic difference between a product and service it means that service based marketing is entirely focused on building trust and reducing risk… when a consumer purchases a service they are (on the whole) unable to make a snap decision and the marketing should reflect this by seeking to build a relationship with them.
This is what is known as relationship marketing. 
If we are to use relationship marketing, which happens to be almost tailor-made for social media, then we need to understand the core of how a relationship develops… When we understand how business relationship forms then we can take our social media marketing to the next level.
Business relationships, indeed almost all relationships, form in 3 distinct stages.
In order for any relationship to move forwards there need to be bonds between the actors, bonds between yourself and your prospective new patient. Basic human psychology means we tend to like people we are like… So help patients to like you.
This is where sharing personal stories and information really comes into force. Great examples of this are:
Indeed, any type of invent at the practice which allows someone to say “Ooh, I’m just like them, I like that too…”
These are conversation starters, they opened the door to take the next step in the relationship building process.
The next stage in the process will only occur when someone feels as though they like you, this next stage is giving people something to do.
This is typically handing out useful, free and relevant generic dental health advice, great social media posts that fall into this activity link category are things like:
The key here is to put a clickable link into your social media post, that link can either be to an image or to a website which has the answer to this particular dental question.
The key thing to understand here is that it DOES NOT have to be your own resources… You could link out to the British Dental Health Foundation, or Colgate or any other dental resource. The point of this type of post is that you are demonstrating that you care about solving patient’s problems over and above making a profit as a dental practice.
If you are trying to sell them something by deliberately pointing them to your website all the time it does not necessarily build trust.
Once we have spent some time building trust we can then move onto the final stage of the relationship building process.
And this is the part of relationship building marketing which feels like conventional marketing, it’s the part where we tell people how great we are and how well we can solve their dental problems.
In the resource ties section of the relationship building process we are asking a prospective new patient to commit some form of resource to us, either money or time.
Time resources could be reading a blog post you have written (answering one of the questions listed above) or it could be to come and see you for an initial consultation.
Patients are not going to jump to the resource ties section of the relationship building process if you haven’t spent time developing that relationship in the first place and they don’t trust you or view you as a low risk option.
Too many practices can’t resist the urge to jump up and down, shout loudly and wave their hands talking about how great they are, how fabulous their free consultation is, how much they want to give patients 50% off for a particular treatment on a certain day of the week… Completely missing the point that social media is about RELATIONSHIPS, not TRANSACTIONS.
My recommendation is to keep posts in the following percentages.
Each time you go to write a social media updates, think about which of these categories it falls into, it’s absolutely fine just to seek to deepen the relationship with someone… Not all of your posts need to be about teeth - posting a picture of your dog, or a book you are reading, or restaurant you have recently visited may be the right thing for a person to see for the very 1st time on social media… You can then develop their relationship with you over a period of time as they see things about you in your practice that they can connect with.
Social media is about connecting with people as human beings, developing the relationship by increasing trust and lowering risk… Follow this advice and your social media marketing will work incredibly effectively.
 Gummeson E. (2002), Total Relationship Marketing, (2nd edition), Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann
 Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995) Developing Relationships in Business Markets, London: Routledge
It's the summer, and soon you'll all be inundated with patients wanting their teeth fixed before they smile nicely for the border control people. Brace Yourselves, People - The Holidays Are Coming. By @DentistGoneBadd
I'm sure I'll take you with pleasure!" the Queen said. "Two pence a week, and jam every other day."
"Well, I don't want any to-day, at any rate."
"You couldn't have it if you did want it," the Queen said. "The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!
Poor Alice, life had seemed much simpler when she graduated BDS, two years ago. A sunny summer passed living on her parents’ credit card visiting her friends from university. But the confusion had already started.
Alice was qualified and fully GDC registered so could work privately. She must wait 8 weeks until September to start her FD job post. She kept hearing about the shortage of NHS dentists but this was the “system”.
Her FD year went well, learning new skills with a supportive trainer, and then she failed to get either of the associate jobs in “mixed” practices for which she had been interviewed. The successful candidates were people who called themselves “Cosmetic Dentists” with portfolios of perfect photographs of composite restorations and who boasted about how many Invisalign cases they had done.
Soon, she was back living at home to start her first “proper” job; working in Mr Jackson’s practice where she had done her work experience from school. Mr Jackson didn’t own it any more and it wasn’t quite the same, being part of the “GleamDent” chain where everyone wore identical, shapeless “scrubs”. It didn’t seem as friendly as she remembered.
Her interview had been OK, although they didn’t seem keen on her charity work and hobbies nor did she didn’t get to meet any of the other dentists. The practice manager, “Queenie” as everyone called her, seemed a bit brusque and insisted on her signing her employee contract before she left the building, although she was sure they had told her on her FD course days that wasn’t best practice. Queenie said that was what GleamDent did and it was a standard “BDA” contract, so it should be OK.
The confusion continued. When she was eventually paid, four weeks after the month end, she hadn’t earned as much as expected. There were so many deductions! Laboratory work she understood, but laundry bills for those awful scrubs? She had made a couple of private crowns for an old friend using a different impression material, so she must pay 100% of the material cost as it was a “non-standard” GleamDent product. Hadn’t she read the employee manual listing what was acceptable and what was optional? Well no, she hadn’t because it wasn’t available.
CPD provision and certification was available in-house, at a cost. £100 for someone from GleamDent HQ to recite Prof Welbury’s child safeguarding manual, seemed a bit steep.
She did at least have a GleamDent online mentor and coach. He worked at a practice 150 miles away had seemed encouraging when they first met via Skype, “the first five years are the worst!” he had joked, she presumed it was a joke. She hadn’t been told that she would have to pay him too.
Alice had been a diligent student and enjoyed statistics but “practice KPIs” were a mystery all of their own. She received daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly reports, which usually arrived in the early hours of the morning. Queenie expected her to have read and understood them by the time of the next team morning huddle, or “The naming and shaming session” as the other associates called it.
Whatever the KPIs said, Alice felt as if nothing could improve. She couldn’t grasp why patient’s late cancellation of hygienist appointments could be her fault or why she was then expected to make a contribution to the hygienist’s wages.
Twelve months later and the promised “loads of private patients” was rarely more than a trickle of challenging full denture cases. Alice was the last to arrive and got the highest needs NHS patients, she had trouble making her UDA targets and was now facing subsidising any practice clawback. “Your problem”, said Queenie during one of her little “pep-talks,” is that you care too much. You spend too long with the patients; the chatting and consent should be done by “TCO Jackie”, the treatment coordinator. “You must learn how to become a more effective operator, you’ll never be a success unless you cut corners. How do you think Dr King, (the founder of GleamDent) made his money?”
Alice remembered a line from her FD Information Handbook, warning about social media blurring the boundary between public and professional life. She hadn’t realised that there could be a similar blurring between ethical and less ethical behaviour.
It all seemed dreadfully confusing.
NHS hospital doctors are understandably concerned about refusing treatment if overseas patients can't pay. But is it that hard to deny patients treatment?
I'll Do Anything For Teeth But I Won't Do That)
If your patients feel more confident using a bit of glue on your superb denture, do you despair? Well you shouldn't. It's all cool according to a new white paper.
Meeting A Sticky End
Why Dental Fixatives Are No Longer Taboo
If you check out the word fortitude you get a sense of the characteristics necessary to campaign on Public Health. Resilience, endurance, perseverance, patience, tenacity, resolve, determination, grit and pluck. I wish we’d looked this up in 2012 when we started all of this – we may have decided to duck the challenge. We didn’t, and now we know why fortitude is essential, necessary, imperative, obligatory paramount, courage over a long period, plucky………
Back to 2012 then - let’s fire up the De Lorean although for the petrol heads it’s a metaphorical one as we know they stopped making them in 1983 which coincidentally was the same year that McColl v Strathclyde set a 201 day record for any legal case in Scotland over you guessed it Community Water Fluoridation. Manchester City win their first league title in 44 years, the Olympics come to London, Bruce Springsteen releases Land of Hope and Dreams and Hull LDC wake up.
Hull LDC met at the Ionians Rugby Club back then and that evening we meant business. Ionians were known for their love of democracy, philosophy the arts and pleasure. We were more in to treating our patients and staying healthy and solvent as NHS Practitioners but we did enjoy a beer. That night we were fed up as usual. Fed up with the tsunami of decay and the human consequences, the pain, the extractions the relentless tide of poor dental health. We were all very committed to prevention. We were all very committed to our patients and to the community of Hull. But we felt powerless and we knew we needed change. Hull has very poor oral health and is one of the most deprived areas in England. We understand the social health gradient now, but we were embedded in it in 2012 (as we still are) and we finally decided to do something. This isn’t surprising. People from Hull have a track record of standing up. In 1642 Hull refused the King entry to the City even though he turned up personally, endured a long siege militarily outnumbered by 2:1 and finally saw off the threat. That definitely takes pluck, grit, and fortitude.
Over a pint of bitter and a sandwich we voted to try and drive a Fluoridation agenda. We would start with a letter to the BDJ and publish an e – petition. So we did, convinced in our own minds that by the next AGM we would have cracked it.
We even developed a QR code link to the e- petition on the Petition Parliament site. Like a deluded punter down the bookies – we couldn’t lose could we?
The BDJ printed the letter and we waited for the e-petition to take off, soar,go viral. But it didn’t and in October six months after our rallying call for something to happen, it closed on 315 signatures.
So in October 2012 it seemed like Hull LDC were standing at the Fluoridation barricades alone or at least there were only 315 of us. Then the phone rang in Reception and my Nurse whispered in my ear – “there’s a Prof on the phone who wants to speak to you about your letter in the Journal.” I finished my fifth extraction on a child that morning and took the call.
To be continued...
Domiciliary dental care was in the news the other day — or rather a lack of it. Hopefully there may be some discussion now on adequate funding for treating the housebound. "Sorry. Don't Do House Visits"
I was initially quite scathing of the Tory Leadership selection process, but when I looked back critically at the way that I chose members of practice staff, I thought better of it. "You'll Do" How NOT To Choose Practice Staff By @DentistGoneBadd
The phrase “Existential Crisis” has been used a lot recently. In an individual it is defined as, “a moment at which one questions if their life has meaning, purpose or value”. Often it occurs at a point of depression or negative speculations on ones purpose in life.
Extrapolate that to a country and you have UK 2019 where political leaders in both government and opposition seem to have lost their perspective on many things, not least the word beginning “Brex”.
Dentistry like much of healthcare, is no exception. There are many dentists examining themselves and their motivations, trying to make sense of the direction they thought they were heading and the reality. Are these individuals really symptoms of a far bigger crisis or crossroads within the profession? And is it limited to the UK?
Examine the traditional career pathway. Dental student, FD, perhaps a little hospital work then an associateship or three, find a place that suits you and either buy into a partnership or buy a practice of your own. The financial pressures of ownership led to a focus on the reality of running a tight ship making the years of relative sufficiency and comfortable associateship feel like a dream. It all seems so simple.
With hindsight 2006 was a far greater watershed than we could have imagined. Fixed contracts have brought associates to the verge of employed status. Scarcity of contracts has led to massive inflation of their value. Most agree that the contract remains bad for everyone involved excepting those who hold the purse strings and make the rules. Yet there are no shortage of takers.
Looking at it from more than a decade and a half, the one outstanding thing was the independence of practitioners. Even those who chose to be “career” associates (including those who worked part time with family commitments) had stability with their own contracts and patients. The DoH write the rules, they wanted control and they have taken it.
Add to the mix the onus on universities to produce graduates to work in the NHS as opposed to being safe to provide care under any arrangement. The change in emphasis appears small, but is significant.
The fall out from Shipman has brought about a broad brush approach to the need for compliance, adding yet another contribution to the erosion of morale. The Care Quality Commission was never suited to Dentistry and remains a poor fit. Yet the tank trundles ever onward, distracting and crushing dental teams under its tracks.
There has been a growth of larger practices and the pervasive influence of corporates, some, not all, with a culture of command and control management which puts the investors’ interests above those of the patients and workforce. New graduates, taken in by piecrust promises and unable to find other posts are discovering that there is no line on a spreadsheet for empathy and care.
The commoditisation of orthodontics, led by the Align corporation, far from increasing individual skills is leading to an A.I. world. How many steps away are we from photographs taken with an app on an iPhone transmitted to a central hub for diagnosis, treatment planning and subsequent appliance delivery direct to the consumer. Why bother with those pesky dentists with their expectations and sense of entitlement?
Diagnosis of disease will be done more accurately using computers, treatments that can’t be carried out by robots will be performed by Dental Therapists. The headlong rush to being “Dental Beauticians” opens the market to many. Just because something has always been safe and controlled doesn’t mean that it will remain so. Remember coal, steel and newspaper typesetters.
In their book “The Future of the Professions”, Richard and Daniel Susskind predict the decline of today's professions and introduces the people and systems that will replace them. In an internet-enhanced society, we will neither need nor want doctors, teachers, accountants, architects, the clergy, consultants, lawyers, and many others, to work as they did in the 20th century.
The authors challenge the 'grand bargain' - the arrangement that grants various monopolies to today's professionals. They argue that our current professions are antiquated, opaque and no longer affordable, and that the expertise of their best is enjoyed only by a few.
Perhaps we should all embrace Dentistry’s Existential Crisis and plan for our futures.
The poet Philip Larkin wrote words to the effect of "They mess you up, your mum and dad." They may very well do, but I think dental school has exactly the same effect on dentists.
Dental School. The Worst Days Of My Life
Sometimes, keeping quiet is the best way to remain diplomatic in dentistry. There are various ways of stopping yourself from putting your foot in your mouth. Here is my favourite.
Stock Up With Lip Balm
When Biting Your Lip Is The Best Policy
In the last blog post we talked about ensuring that your website had some form of longevity. One of the biggest problems of a website is you spend so much time and effort attracting visitors to the site yet when they visit the simply bounce and leave again, off to go back to doing whatever it was they were doing before.
To get the most out of digital marketing we really need to work to ensure that your website has ongoing marketability, even if people don't visit the website any longer!
Sounds strange… So how do we do that?
Let me introduce you to gentle e-mail marketing. If we can collect someone's e-mail address whilst they are on your website, whilst they are a hot prospect and interested in your services then we can continue to communicate with them after they leave your website.
I can almost hear you groan, “e-mail marketing is spam”, I can hear you saying.
Wait one moment – here’s an example…
If you do the National Lottery online you will know that if you win something then they send you an e-mail.
Every Saturday I'm avidly checking my phone waiting for that e-mail notification that I'm a lottery winner… I've occasionally received an e-mail which tells me I need to log into my account and check, my heart is racing as I visit their website to find out I've won an almighty £25!
This example shows the e-mails per se are not spam, it is the CONTENT of that e-mail that makes it spam, some e-mails (like ones from the National Lottery) we are eager to receive and waiting to turn up. How great would it be if you had a prospective patient anticipating the next e-mail from you?
Let me show you how.
The trick is to turn marketing backward, rather than ask “what can I get out of this prospect?”, ask the question “what can I give this person for free that will build trust and reduce risk?”
The answer is generic dental health advice and information.
If you create a free guide, place it on your website on relevant pages and allow people to download the guide for FREE but in exchange for an e-mail address you can help to demonstrate you care about the readers of your site at the same time as collecting their e-mail address. You can then follow them up with a gentle series of e-mails which continues to build a relationship and answer their dental questions.
Here's an example.
On your dental implants page create a free guide entitled “Everything you need to know about replacing missing teeth.” In your guide you can talk about
We can then follow-up that free guide with a gentle series of e-mails which looks at:
I could go on, but you get the picture…
As you can see, each e-mail is simply answering various patients concerns, each e-mail may not be entirely relevant to that person depending upon what their particular question is, but because we've written a series of e-mails we can be assured that at least one e-mail is going to be absolutely applicable to that person.
Now, we don't send all of these e-mails out in one go. We want to make sure they look natural and don't clog up someone's inbox.
The best sequence to send these e-mails out is based upon the Fibonacci series of numbers and the golden proportion, exactly the same formula you would use to calculate the width of centrals, laterals, and canines when doing cosmetic dentistry. This sequence of numbers is a beautiful sequence which appears often in nature and looks extremely natural.
So send your e-mails out with the following number of days between each e-mail 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 etc continuously add the previous 2 numbers to give you the 3rd number and then continue to repeat this process will give you the full Fibonacci series of numbers.
As you can see the e-mails get further and further apart as the prospect gets further down the e-mail series. I get a HIGH open rate of 70-100% using this system, so I know it works.
In each of the e-mails resist the urge to sell, sell, sell, rather handout your useful free and relevant advice to build trust and lower risk and at the same time give the patient a simple way to move into the next stage of the process, typically this may be a discounted dental health check or free consultation.
Make sure your e-mails have a button which is clickable that drives the person to this consultation. Again, this should not simply be phoning you, this should be a free consultation which is claimed by downloading a voucher from the website, this voucher then means that this marketing is then trackable when people come in to the practice but also if you have a voucher downloaded from the website means that we are again collecting people's e-mail addresses rather than simply suggesting they phone us which they probably won't remember to do the next day!
If you are then really clever you can use e-mail automation to drop people into additional campaigns, for example, let's say they click the free consultation button in one of the follow-up e-mails but do not take action, we can have an intelligent e-mail system recognises this and then drops them into an additional campaign letting them know the advantages of a free consultation, how gentle you will be, how much you will listen to their concerns and how easy it is to book.
All of these e-mails should be run from an e-mail management system, I recommend Aweber which starts at $19 per month (a highly affordable option) if you repeat this process with straightening crooked teeth, dental health, cosmetic dentistry and facial rejuvenation you will have built a robust marketing strategy which works off of your website 24-hours a day, 7 days a week never sleeping.
What you will find is that your return on investment from the website goes up enormously, no longer are people visiting your site and bouncing off again, they are now interacting with your site, we are collecting their e-mail address and we are using your website as simply the starting point in building a relationship with your prospective new patient.
Everything with the patient at the centre and not you.
If you treat e-mail like this, as a way to help people you will find e-mail can be one of THE best ways to maximise the benefits of digital marketing.
25th May 2018 is a date etched in the memories of all dentists and practice managers; the date when the General Data Protection Regulations, and the Data Protection Act 2018, came into force. A little like the millennium bug, the furore surrounding this data protection revolution was immense. Was this just another layer of regulation for an already over regulated profession, or a fundamental change in the way that we treat personal data?
12 months on we look at the effect of the regulations and whether dental practices have got to grips with the changes and how the Information Commissioner’s office has been dealing with data breaches.
The General Data Protection Act, a brief history.
The GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 came into force on the 25th May 2018. The regulations were intended to provide Europe wide rules to protect individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data, and to regulate the movement of European citizen’s personal data across the world. The regulations included:
In practical terms the changes saw dental practices having to thoroughly overhaul the way in which they managed their patients’ data, adopting a much cohesive and considered approach to handling the personal data of their patients.
But has GDPR made a practical difference?
What do the statistics tell us?
The ICO data shows that between January 2014 and December 2016 Healthcare Organisations accounted for 43% of all reported data breaches to the ICO. In 2017 there were 2877 reported breaches, 1062 were from healthcare, 37%. The main types of breaches related to loss or theft of paperwork and data being sent to the wrong person by email or letter.
For the first “Post-GDPR” quarter, April to July 2018, healthcare data breaches accounted for 677 of 3146 reported breaches; just 21.5%. In the second quarter, August 2018 to November 2018 healthcare breaches accounted for 619 of 4056 reported breaches; just 15%. However, whilst the percentages may be going down, the overall number of breaches complained of has gone up significantly for all areas, including healthcare.
Does this mean that all the changes implemented by dental practices have been a failure? No, one reason for the significant increase in reported breaches is the general public’s greater understanding of their data protection rights. The message that your data is owned by you as an individual, and therefore should be controlled by you, is finally getting through. People are much more alive to the dangers of sharing their data freely, and know their rights. The ICO is now in the public lexicon and people know how to complain.
What the statistics do show is that there is still a great deal of room for improvement in our data processing systems and the training that we provide to team members.
What have the ICO been doing over the last year?
The short answer is, working very hard. The regulators have had to deal with the biggest changes to data protection laws in a generation, and are now coping with a significantly higher number of complaints. But along the way they have managed to catch a few of the major offenders.
In October 2018 the ICO issued the maximum fine possible (under the old regime) to Facebook for failing to protect its users’ personal information. The investigation found that between 2007 and 2014 Facebook processed the personal information of its users unfairly, by allowing application developers access to their information without sufficiently clear and informed consent, and allowing access even if users had not downloaded the app, but were simply ‘friends’ with people who had. Facebook failed to check the way in which app developers were using its platform. One developer harvested the data of over 87 million people worldwide.
In November 2018 the ICO fined Uber £385,000, again under the old regime, for data breaches that occurred between October and November 2016. A series of data security flaws allowed the personal data of around 2.7 million UK Uber customers to be accessed and downloaded by hackers. The records of almost 82,000 drivers were also stolen. Uber made matters much worse by failing to tell their customers or their drivers about the breach for over a year.
Whilst these fines may have had little impact on either of these multi-national companies, under the new regime the ICO can impose fines of €20 million or 4% of the company’s global turnover, whichever is higher. To put this into perspective, Facebook’s annual revenue for 2018 is reported as being $55.8 billion.
And whilst the ICO has not yet concluded any large scale investigations under the new regime, in January 2019 the French equivalent, the CNIL, fined Google €50 million for its lack of transparency and information regarding the processes it uses when processing data and the failure to provide data retention information. Furthermore, Google had not obtained valid consent, as users were not sufficiently informed, nor was the consent obtained specific or unambiguous. Google had continued to use pre-ticked boxes in certain circumstances, which drew particular criticism.
In reality, the 25th May 2018 was the start not the end of GDPR preparation. Practices must ensure that they are fully compliant and can evidence compliance in the event of a breach. Records of processing activity, privacy policies and notices must be reviewed and updated where appropriate. Staff must continue to be alive to the risk of breaches. Systems must be put in place to ensure that the risk of data breaches is reduced.
Julia Furley, Barrister
Although dentists may feel under attack a lot of the time, the risk of litigation is actually (relatively) low. Complaints can often be dealt with through excellent communication skills and a willingness to listen and respond sensitively to the concerns raised by the patient. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to resolve disputes or complaints by patients internally. This can be the result of a number of factors, from the dental practice’s internal complaints procedure, lack of staff training to patient demographic. If all reasonable attempts to resolve the complaint internally have been exhausted, then dentists should be signposting other, objective complaints handling services. This not only assists the parties in moving forward from sometimes intransigent positions, it avoids patients turning immediately to lawyer for advice on resolution.
Every NHS practice must have a copy of the NHS complaints policy and must provide it to a patient if a complaint has been made regarding NHS treatment provided. Patients should also be advised that help is available to them via the NHS Complaints Advocacy Service. Bear in mind, patients are not obliged to complain directly to a practice first, the patient can go straight to the NHS; although following the internal complaints procedure should be strongly encouraged, and patients should always be provided with access to a clear and comprehensive internal complaints procedure. A complaint to the NHS will be made directly to NHS England and must include the patient’s contact details, a clear description of what is being complained about, the name of the service being complained about and all relevant correspondence. The patient will be asked to give their consent to the practice being contacted regarding the complaint.
Complaints must be made within 12 months of the date on which the subject matter of the complaint occurred, or 12 months after the date that the subject matter of the complaint came to the notice of the complainant. Complaints are acknowledged within 3 days of receipt. However, the NHS has a 40 working day target to investigate (this can be extended where appropriate). Investigation A case officer will be appointed and will obtain the relevant information about the case and make sure that it is accurately recorded. The process of the investigation itself is reasonably flexible, and the case officer will take necessary steps to properly investigate the complaint. They will prepare an investigatory report and thereafter send a formal response to the patient. During the investigation the practice may wish to consider both mediation and obtaining a second opinion if appropriate. The response will contain: An explanation as to how the complaint has been considered. Conclusions and an apology if appropriate. An explanation as to why the decision has been reached. Whether the complaint is upheld (in part or in full). What remedial actions are being recommended. Confirmation from the dental practice that action has or will be taken. A response regarding “lessons learnt” if appropriate. Contact details of the ombudsman. If the patient remains dissatisfied with the way in which the complaint has been dealt with, then they can ask the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to review the case. The dentist should cooperate fully throughout this procedure; however unmeritorious a complaint may be. The case officer can decide to report matters to the GDC if they feel it necessary to do so. Keeping an open and positive approach to the investigation will limit the risk of further complaints being made.
The dental complaints service (DCS) is intended to provide a similar complaints service as that provided by NHS England. The GDC funds the service, its staff members are employed by them and it is accountable to the GDC Council. However, investigations are run independently of the GDC. That being said if the DCS do become aware of any issues regarding a practitioners behaviour or competency, then they will (like the NHS) refer the matter to the GDC fitness to practice team.
Again, complaints must be made within 12 months of treatment taking place or 12 months of the patient becoming aware of the issue. Initially patients are referred back to the practice to attempt to resolve matters internally. If this is not possible, then a complaints officer will be appointed and work with both sides to try and reach a resolution. If a resolution is not possible, then the matter is referred to the DCS panel; the final stage of the complaints process. The panel consists of two lay members and a dental professional. Both the patient and the dentist will be invited to attend a meeting. The parties will have an opportunity to put their side of the complaint, and to work towards reaching an amicable resolution. If no agreement is reached, then the panel will make a recommendation.
Feedback from users of the DCS is generally good. The last annual review of the service was in 2014, but this showed of the 1068 cases considered, 95% of patients who provided feedback were satisfied with the recommendations offered, compared with 64% of dentists. Whilst this may reflect a tendency by the organisation to prefer the accounts of patients, it may also reflect a willingness of dental professionals to refund dental fees as a business decision, as opposed to admission of liability, once the DCS gets involved.
This type of resolution, whilst frustrating, can be a much quicker and cheaper option than defending a clinical negligence claim.
Julia Furley, Barrister
Patients do some strange things, but so do dental product manufacturers sometimes. They're as bad as each other in my book. You're putting WHAT In Your Mouth? (Some DIY Dental Tips) By @DentistGoneBadd
At long last, the mental well-being of dentists and dental professionals is being discussed openly. Hopefully the discussion will lead to practice help and support.
I might start off by actually saying the title of this blog is probably one of the most Oxymoronic I’ve ever thought of, but then that would probably give away the content and the thread of what follows.
However, I don’t really care if it does give away what follows; because I’m sure that many of my readers will understand just where I am coming from and why there needs to be something done about the environment we currently have in UK dentistry.
No-one can deny that corporate dentistry generally is becoming bigger and bigger as the years pass. I can remember the original clamour back in the mid 1990’s to buy the original corporate ‘shell companies’ that were legally able to provide dentistry under the 1921 re-organisation of the profession. I’m not sure anyone who was in practice in those times could have then foreseen the huge growth of the corporate, but the real change came when all practices were allowed to incorporate (as an aside, does any one else think it’s funny how the Dentists Act 1984 allowed this but still can’t work out how to take a monthly direct debit from us instead of an annual payment, but I digress…..). What is true however is that there is a significant amount of dentistry now provided under the auspices of corporate dental companies, of which some of them are quite large players. I will say here; this blog is not about any specific company; I am sure there will be some out there who have good stories to tell. However, there is no doubt that in some corporates in some places and some practices there is a culture that is not good, not healthy, and downright nasty.
Those of you on Facebook may well also be members of the ‘Mental Dental’ page. This is a hugely important page that has become an important outlet for its members to vent their concerns about a multitude of issues affecting them. By simple extrapolation, many of the issues floated here are likely to not just be unique to the original (often anonymous for good reasons) poster, but relevant to other professionals finding themselves in similar positions.
A good many of the posts on this page (and indeed on most dental specific social media groups) seem to revolve around issues that associates are having with their corporates. Whilst I am the first one to consider that there are always two sides to every story, there is also a common theme to nearly all the threads posted. Note that I didn’t actually say “Corporate Employers’ at this stage; but more of this later.
It is apparent that even if you take into account that not all the stories are likely to be entirely balanced, there are a significant amount of associates who are having problems with the working environment of the corporates. From faulty equipment not getting repaired, running out of materials, a lack of clinical freedom in referring, to outright bullying, the same themes come up over and over again. This can’t just be put down to only having one side of the story surely? The fact that these threads appear so often, from so many different contributors shows that there has to be something more behind the threads.
Some of the more concerning posts often involve bullying of associates. From target driven issues, to ‘you make waves and we’ll report you to the GDC’, this seems to often be driven by management teams within the corporate environment. There is NO place for bullying in any environment, and the fact that some people feel that it is acceptable to disguise this as performance management doesn’t make it in any way acceptable.
But how has this environment come about? I’m pretty sure the dental registrants at board level haven’t issued dictats to their managers condoning the bullying of their teams? However, the need to make money for the shareholders means that these directors have to ensure the business is profitable (although there’s another oxymoron – the profitable corporate..) and the ideas discussed at board level eventually filter down to the teams regionally and locally,
This is where the problem lies in my opinion. When the board comes up with an idea, it is down to those below it to implement this, and the board is not necessarily aware of the fine details in how this is done; just how that it needs to be done. It is down to the teams on the ground to implement that desires of the board. How they therefore go about this is part of the problem. With management teams that are often not fellow dentists (or even registrants on occasion), there can be a lack of understanding of how the profession truly works. Yes, these people can be given training in the dental industry, but they may not have the same ethical and moral compass, or even the need to be registered by the GDC, and therefore do NOT know what it means to be a real professional.
When you hear stories of associates raising concerns to management about slack appointment books causing them to not meet their UDA target, to then be shown edited data showing the books are now full, and threatening them with a counter concern about clinical treatment (that the managers know full well can result in a GDC case and a livelihood threatening result), then you have to consider that the whole structure of corporate dentistry needs re-addressing rapidly. This threat has been real, this is not hypothetical, nor fictional.
Now I’m fairly sure most of the REGISTRANT directors of the corporates are very ethical and still have the moral compass that is needed; but they don’t seem to be getting the message down to their teams very well. Whether this is because they are not being heard above the voices of the non-professionals who have no regulator to fear, or whether the management structure is so poor that the message is not getting through I don’t really care. What is certain however is that a good many of these registrant directors seem to be unable, unwilling, or unprepared to step in to deal with the problems that we hear about, otherwise we would stop hearing of them almost on a weekly basis.
Have these directors forgotten they can be held vicariously responsible for negligent acts and omissions? They seem to rely on the self employed status of associates in order to deny all knowledge of the problem. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that the associates who work in these organisations are less and less likely to be seen as truly self employed as a result of various court cases (Pimlico plumbers, UBER, to name but 2), and it is about time that they took their corporate responsibility a lot more seriously than they appear to. I’m sure a few minds would be somewhat more focused on their ultimate responsibilities if a few of them were found to be vicariously liable for a few clinical issues, or taken to an industrial tribunal by a disgruntled associate (which if you believe the stories on social media might not be a small number).
They cannot hide behind the excuses that they don’t know what is going on. There is enough spoken about in the profession about corporate issues that this is about as believable as saying they aren’t aware Elvis is dead. Whenever there is a problem posted on the various groups, I always recommend that the highest level clinical director be notified, rather than the middle management (which is often the source of the problem) in order to ensure the problem lands at the door of a registrant rather than a (sometimes over-promoted) manager. Recruitment seems to rely on the fact that younger registrants often have ludicrous debts to pay, and therefore will end up working for these organisations as they appear to have little other choice.
Registrant directors need to step up and take the responsibility for the mismanagement and bullying that appears to be a problem in their organisations, and deal with it decisively. If this costs money and time then so be it; but if it does it may well show some of corporates for the shallow and non-profitable businesses that they really are. Alternatively, if they don’t act, it’ll show the profession that these people might not have the integrity, ethics, and morals that are required to be members of our profession.
But if the latter is the case, then the GDC should be told. They should ensure that the need to act in the best interests of the patient is drummed into all those registrants who sit on the boards of the corporates. There should be no hiding behind the corporate structure of these businesses and claiming ignorance of the problem. When the majority of the entire profession seems to be aware of the magnitude of problems with some corporates, then the directors cannot feign ignorance.
The elephant (so big its actually more likely a Mammoth) in the room however is that if these directors were to be removed by the GDC, the remaining non-registrant directors would no longer be able to continue the practice of dentistry and the corporate would no longer be able to function under GDC rules. What this would do for the provision of NHS dentistry would be potentially shattering, with the loss of these businesses. Additionally, is there anyone reading this in any doubt that some corporates would seek to protect their viability by cutting loose the registrant directors and replacing them at the first sign of the GDC taking an interest in them? That would really show the profession just where the priorities of some of these companies lie.
Perhaps this is why there is no appetite to deal with the problem decisively, and instead this will continue to be a problem for years to come, with neither the Registrant Directors OR the GDC taking any form of corporate responsibility for the problems that seem to be within this area of the industry.
If you have a dental practice website then you want it to work, otherwise it's a completely wasted resource!
For a website to work, in my opinion you need to have 2 primary functions in place.
Without either of the above the website becomes ineffective.
If you had wonderful traffic optimisation and 100,000 visitors to the website per month yet only had a 0.001% conversion rate then you would only have 1 new patient per month. This scenario is highly unlikely to give you a good return on investment on your website.
Equally, if you had wonderful conversion optimisation with a 100% conversion rate yet only had 1 visitor per month then you would still only have 1 new patient per month. This scenario is equally highly unlikely to give you a good return on investment from your website.
You ALWAYS need traffic and conversion optimisation working hand in hand. If you work with a search engine optimisation company and all they do is get more traffic to your website then, in my opinion, this is completely worthless unless conversion optimisation is also worked on.
In my experience I have found that a dental website needs to be performing in the following areas:
Each of these five key areas provides an excellent way to audit your own website, so open your website now and compare your site with these performance areas.
This is pure search engine optimisation and includes (but is not limited to) the following areas:
Website title, description & headers - these should accurately reflect the content of each page. Every single page on your website should have a different title, description and headers.
Image alternate tags - these describe images for people with visual impairment, Google is able to read the description and may give a slight boost your website if the descriptions are relevant.
Text - Google is (currently ) unable to read text on images. For the moment at least we need to ensure that we have excellent and expansive content on your website which uses a range of keywords and phrases that people type into Google. If Google isn't able to understand what your website is about and/or it is not relevant to what people are actually looking for then Google will not send traffic to your site.
Inbound links (votes) - if your website is good then people will talk about it, Google knows if people are talking about your website online because it will notice the links back to your site. The more of these links you have then the higher you will rank in the search results.
Link authority - but it’s not only about volume of these links. If you manage to get a quote about your dental practice and a link back from the BBC website then this link would have MASSIVE authority. With this one single link you would almost certainly see a huge improvement in your search engine results
Internal linking - Google is able to crawl around your website following all of the links. If you have orphaned pages (pages with no links) then this is an indication to Google that this page is not important, think about it, if you had a really important page on your website such as the dental implants page then you would obviously link to it from multiple other places within the site! If your dental implants page is an orphan, with no links from anywhere else then you are indicating to Google that your implants page is not very important… And Google may choose not to rank it very highly.
External linking - good quality links out from your website to high quality sources can help your website be seen by Google as a useful resource. Example, let's say you're talking about dental implants and want to communicate more about bone grafting, linking to a good quality bone grafting information website could help the way Google sees your site is a useful resource.
Good usability helps both the user and your search engine optimisation, Google ranks some usability factors quite highly.
Video -having videos on your website enables patients which like to see visual moving images and/or listen to audio engage with your site more. Particularly patient stories and testimonials.
Calls to action - in marketing terms this is telling someone what you want someone to do from your website, every single page should have a very specific action that you want the patient to do… This could be download a guide, request a free consultation, book an appointment, send you a message or phone you.
General enquiry - you should have an ability for a patient to make a general enquiry, this should be separate from the request an appointment form.
Request an appointment - you should have a specific request an appointment form which potential patients can complete requesting an appointment at the ideal day and time, this should then drop into an automated e-mail marketing system which follows up automatically.
Flow through the website - your website should flow smoothly and guide patients, try to think big and then narrow your thinking down, for example:
Straightening crooked teeth (the problem) > Invisalign (the solution) > Invisalign cost (potential questions about the solution)
As we granulate the problem down into solutions and questions you can have separate pages on the website, this means patients can be guided through from their general problem through to potential solutions and then answer the questions about those solutions.
Put quite simply social media is word-of-mouth marketing on steroids. Your website should have a simple facility (usually a button to click) which encourages patients to share the page they are on with their friends on social media… It sounds simple but can work really well to get your website shared.
Is your website focused around trying to sell treatments or help patients? A website that is dedicated around selling will be focused on YOU… A website which is dedicated around helping patients will be focused on the user. The latter will be considerably more effective.
Social proof - social proof is the technical marketing name for testimonials and reviews, you should be collecting these on Google and Facebook and then displaying a selection on your website. Testimonial videos can also be used to enhance this.
One of the things we want to do is to get your website working over the long-term for EACH user. Most websites only work whilst the visitor is on the site, the best websites manage to capture visitor details whilst the visitor is on the site, if we do this then we can continue to communicate with that person over the long-term. This means your website doesn't just work for the minute or so that each visitor is on, if you can capture their details then you can drop them into an automated and extremely gentle relationship building marketing system.
In the next blog posts in this series we are going to look exclusively at this gentle relationship building marketing system, we will look at how to use it on your website, how to automate it and how to ensure your website works 24/7, never sleeping, never tiring and continually providing new patients for the practice… Until then.
Dental practices often receive requests to access dental records from people other than the patient.
One of the most common questions we are asked at JFH Law is whether a dental practice is obliged to disclose notes to officials, such as the police or social services. It is understandably hard to refuse to disclose patient notes to a police officer during the course of a missing person or criminal investigation. However, it is important to remember that data protection laws prevail and real consideration must be given to when and why notes are being disclosed.
Whilst GDPR is at the forefront of everyone’s minds right now, a practice also needs to consider professional duties of confidentiality, the common law duty to disclosure in the public interests and the rules contained within the Access to Health Records Act (1990).
In this article we clear up the confusion over who actually does has the right to access a patient’s records and in what circumstances, and how dental practices should respond to these requests?
Living Patient’s Records
If you receive a request from an external body, such as the police or social services, in respect of a living patient’s records, you must consider this carefully before disclosing anything. There is no automatic right to access, not even for the police.
Unless there is a specific court order for disclosure, you will need to consider whether the disclosure would be justified in the ‘public interest’. An example might be if either the patient or someone else was at risk of serious and imminent harm if the notes are not disclosed. You should try to seek informed consent first, but if this is not possible weigh up what is being requested against why it is needed to decide whether disclosure would be justified. Either way, make a clear record of why you have reached the decision you have reached, and why you believe it would be in the public interest to disclose any notes if you chose to do so.
GDPR would also apply in this situation. You could potentially rely on ‘protecting vital interests’ as the lawful basis for disclosing notes. However, this can only be relied on if you need to process personal data in order to protect someone’s life and they are not capable of giving consent. There are very few circumstances that this could be said to be the case for dental records.
If another dentist or health care professional requests the notes, then you will need to satisfy yourself that the patient has consented to disclosure to this third party, in accordance with GDPR and your professional duties of confidentiality. There is no such thing as “off the record” as such it is not lawful to send non-anonymised case records to other practitioners or specialists without the consent of the patient.
If the patient asks you for the records, whether in writing or verbally, but requests they be sent to another dentist then you must comply with this also. The only caveat is if you are concerned that the patient does not understand what the implications of the disclosure might be; you should explain what will be disclosed and check the patient is still happy to consent.
Deceased Patient’s Records
The duty of confidentiality extends beyond the death of a patient. This must be borne in mind when deciding if access to the records will be granted to anyone else. Ultimately, if the patient explicitly states whilst alive that they do not want their records disclosed on death, then this wish must be adhered to.
The Access to Health Records Act (1990) allows access to records to two defined categories, namely:
You do not need to provide access to all of the dental records when requested by the above, only information that is relevant to any claim being pursued. This may require you to obtain from the requester more information as to why the request is being made so you can determine what information should be provided.
You may also receive a request to access the notes of a deceased patient from a coroner (or procurator fiscal in Scotland). As they have a legal obligation placed on them to investigate the death, you must provide them with access to the records.
You may also be asked by the police to provide certain information to help identify a body. In these circumstances disclosure would be justified as being in the public interests.
Remember GDPR applies only to living data subjects and so would not be relevant here.
Whenever you receive a request you should:
In the last blog post we looked at the meaning of dental marketing, how (in my opinion) it should change in dentistry and focus entirely on the patient. I talked about flipping the focus of our marketing to not be about what we can sell as a practice or be about the treatments we want to do, rather, it should be about solving patients problems in an engaging and relationship building way. The natural result of that is that people are attracted to us.
In this post I'm going to begin looking at some of the more specific ways that we can make that happen, future posts are then going to look at each of these individual ways that we can build relationships with patients.
When we look at digital dental marketing is useful to break down into 2 primary areas:
Now that you've broken down digital marketing into very specific areas you can begin to understand more about whether you can do this yourself, who could do it in your practice or what you may need to outsource.
In general, I recommend 3 marketing strands:
Each of these should work in unison, as a system, referring patients backwards and forwards to the correct pace at the correct time in order to answer their dental problems and subsequently to gently attract them into your practice.
No single strand is more or less important than the other.
This is typically how I might approach this.
Patients that engage with you in some way via your website or social media stream may not be ready to book an appointment straightaway, They may be:
We therefore need to provide things for each of these people to do, in order that they can feel as though they have taken action whilst on your site (at the same time we get to collect their information!)
For the respective categories this should be:
As you can see, explorers are not going to book an appointment yet, so what are you going to do to ensure you don’t lose them at this early stage in their decision?
We are using social media to drive people to your website, your website to collect their details, e-mail marketing to answer their questions which then sends auto responses (assuming we have permission) to drive them to make an appointment if appropriate.
Most of this is automated and all of it will work 365 days of the year, 24 hours per day. Never sleeping!
My opinion is that if you don't use all of these mechanisms, all of them working today as a cohesive system then your digital marketing will be less effective and you will be able to help fewer patients.
In the next article going to go through marketing on your website specifically, looking more at hunters, trackers and explorers and how you can get your site to be more effective.
Until next time…
Let's talk dental marketing.
Actually, let's not!
That word “marketing” often has negative connotations.
This old school way of marketing is what is known as a push strategy. You have your marketing message and the treatments/products you wish to ‘sell’ (I hate that word in health care), you then push that message out to the maximum number of people in the hope that someone, somewhere sees your message, identifies with it and buys whatever it is you are selling.
It's a strategy often used in transactional marketing, we simply want someone to engage in a single transaction, part with their money, take the goods, go away and not come back again… Is that something you really want to do in a dental practice?
Let's flip this completely on its head. Let's look at this from the point of view of relationship marketing. 
Relationship marketing often uses a pull strategy instead of the classic push strategy.
A pull strategy involves allowing prospects (new patients) to pull the relevant information towards them at a time that is right for them. It's about handing over control, they control what they see, when they see it and what happens next 
Rather than try to force our message on these people, we simply generate a range of content which answers various dental problems, we put that content in various places on the Internet (think your website, e-mail marketing, social media, YouTube) marketing is then simply driving people towards this relevant content which helps them solve a dental problem.
Here's the thing…
Stop thinking about treatments, services and products.
Start thinking about the problems that those treatments solve.
These are the concerns that patients have, NEVER has a patient woke up one morning and decided out of the blue that they want to have dental implants, what they will do, is wake up one morning and think that they wish to solve their problem of missing teeth, they then go on a search to find out the best way to do this… This search (hopefully for you) ends with them deciding to have dental implants in your practice.
And by the way, by the time you get to the end of this series of blog posts you will see how this search absolutely can end up with them coming to see you in your practice.
If we begin focusing on solving patients’ problems (pull strategy) rather than trying to sell treatments (push strategy) we turn marketing into a relationship building mechanism whereby we genuinely help people with their dental health, and isn't that what dentistry is all about?
In the next blog post I'm going to go through some definitive techniques that you can use in order to implement your new relationship building marketing strategy. I will show you how you can attract new patients in an ethical, friendly, kind and gentle way which builds trust  and reduces risk.
Something which pushing your messages on people absolutely does not do!
Until next time…
 Gummeson E. (2002), Total Relationship Marketing, (2nd edition), Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann
 Urban, G L. (2005), Customer Advocacy: a New Area Marketing?, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing May 2005
 Bibb, S. and Kourdi, J. (2004) Trust Matters, Hampshire UK, Palgrave Macmillian.
The Definitive Guide To
Writing Referral Letters
Let’s start with the essentials. Referral letters should contain the basics; name, sex (if any – I don’t like to ask really), date of birth and reason for returning….oh sorry, that’s sending a parcel back to Amazon. Long gone are the days of “Please see and treat,” so try and give the specialist you are referring to, a bit of a clue as to the reason for your referral. Throw in a couple of vague differential diagnoses if you can, just to demonstrate you aren’t completely gormless, with proper medical terms like ‘epidermolysis bullosa’ or ‘squishy lump.’ It’s probably best not to refer a patient just because you don’t like the look of them, tempting though it is.
If you are worried about a lump, it’s best to send to a consultant lumpologist. But beware, some specialisms do cross over and consultants can get a bit elbowy and will fight over interesting lesions. I once witnessed a near fist-fight between an oral medic and an oral surgery registrar – both convinced they could write a paper about it. Every time, make sure you are referring to the most appropriate department. One department will treat a lesion with a spray and ineffective mouthwash, while another will cut it out and put an implant in its place.
Oral surgery referrals are probably the most common type made. It’s not quite clear why this should be. Fewer dentists get into trouble over oral surgery than perio neglect or root-treatments. I think that oral surgery is probably all a bit too gooey for a lot of dentals and the anticipation of complications is overthought. Because oral surgery departments are absolutely swamped, you have to make a convincing case. Warfarin patients are no longer a bar to treatment in practice, so throw in ‘difficult access’ and ‘a history of difficult extractions’ for good measure. ‘Proximity to the antrum’ doesn’t often wash. Since many oral surgery departments insist on you supplying a supporting radiograph, they can justifiably throw out the referral and tell you where to stick your jpeg when they realise it’s a lower molar you are talking about.
These are probably a little more clear-cut, if you completely ignore IOTN, which I did. I doubt very much if it’s done now, but the acronym ‘FLK’ (Funny Looking Kid) in the margins of the old paper files, acted as a reminder to refer to the orthodontist once the overcrowding started to hurt your aesthetic sensibilities. I find FLK’s generally DO get orthodontic treatment, so providing they are reasonably competent with toothbrushing, and generally look as if they’re using the hairy end, send that referral. Again, don’t just ask to ‘see and treat’. Throw in ‘well-motivated,’ ‘optimal oral hygiene’ and ‘very stroppy mother’ to emphasise the need for action. Chuck in a couple of measurements if you can, and try and crowbar in a stab at a ‘division’ to show to the orthodontist you’ve given it some careful consideration.
This type of referral is usually done in panic five minutes after you have just unexpectedly lost a BPE probe down a previously scoring ‘1,’ so do try and keep the panic out of your letter. Make it sound like you’ve been closely monitoring things for a considerable period of time and really emphasise that when you first saw the patient, most of the damage was already done. ‘Despite my oral hygiene instruction’ also shows that you have been caring, but don’t get too down about having to refer and being condemned by the periodontist. The specialist will probably only see the patient for twenty minutes max anyway, and will never see them again, immediately throwing the patient into the ‘Pit of Hygienists.’
Endodontic referrals are becoming incredibly popular and you are highly unlikely to get one rejected, since they are often made to private specialists. Don’t bother trying to refer to your local dental hospital. The sun will have died well before your patient gets to the top of the list. Besides, dental hospital endodontists are exceptionally picky about what they treat. My local dental hospital won’t treat any tooth beyond a first molar. They aren’t that clear why, though I suspect it’s because trying to get to a seven is a bit ‘too fiddly.’ Failure in endodontics is a growing area of litigation and if you are an NHS dentist in particular, don’t risk ANY root-treatment – refer. You can throw a lot of information into your referral letter – sclerosis, unusual anatomy or “There’s a prominent squiddly-do on my radiograph” – but it doesn’t matter. These are endodontists. They have to pay for swanky microscopes and German Sportwagen. They’ll accept anything.
See Endodontic Referrals. Patients think they are the same thing anyway.
Tricky. Prosthetics specialists are a dying species. Their natural habitat in the 60’s and 70’s was gummy, but since forestation with teeth, the need for them has diminished. The few prosthetists left, tend to pack together at dental schools, desperately attempting to procure close relationships with implantologists, borne out of their innate instinct to survive. Having said all that, I have had more referrals rejected by prosthetics specialists than any other type. To be absolutely honest with you, whatever you say in your referral to a denture specialist, they’ll write back with “We would recommend extending the flanges and see no reason why this cannot be carried out in practice. Now leave me alone. I need to bury my nuts for the winter.” Good luck.
This is where you send all of your ‘challenging’ patients, or those that take an hour to do an enamel-only incisal edge composite on. Terms you should include in your letter are ‘wriggly,’ ‘anxious,’ ‘fearful,’ ‘phobic’ and ‘gagger,’ though be careful you don’t end up making it sound like a Facebook advert for happy hour at the local S&M Club. Make it absolutely clear that this patient needs sedation. Forget about suggesting GA. The clinicians at these emporia don’t stop talking about the risk of death from the time the patient enters the place having found it after previously mistakenly walking into the adjacent STD Clinic. If your local clinics have their own referral forms and it gives you the option to have the patient back if they refuse sedation, tick ‘NO!!!’
Quite a few restorative specialists lurk in dental schools, but despite this, they try not to have anything to do with teeth. There is only one important, indeed, CRITICAL sentence you need to include in your referral letter, and that is: “I am ALREADY monitoring the diet and wear.”
You will normally refer to the oral medicine specialists as a means of backing up your diagnosis, which is almost certainly, atypical facial pain/burning mouth syndrome. Often, you would save a lot of time by giving a nightguard or benzydamine hydrochloride rather than wasting your time on a referral letter.
In the news today is a story about Facebook planning or already on the way to creating a single underlying service, that integrates the Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram message services that so many of us use.
It will mean that a Messenger user will be able to send messages to an Insta user or Whatsapp user, of whom they don’t have other personal or contact details.
This integration, whilst retaining the apps of each separate branded platform, may be the source of some friction during 2018, when the Instagram founders, Mike Krieger and Kevin Systrom unexpectedly left Facebook. They were followed by the Whatsapp founders, Brian Acton and Jan Koum, all for largely unspecified reason, like “playing more Frisbee”.
There will be other advantages for users, as well as the reasons I give below, and one will be the addition of end to end encryption of messages as standard. This will mean neither Facebook itself, nor others, can read what is being sent. Some feel the integration will be a further reason to move away from these services, as they doubt the altruism of Facebook in all of this. Whatsapp users don’t give away too much of their personal data to use that messaging service. However, Facebook users have given an ongoing dump of their personal data to the company in exchange for the service for many years. I think there will be a long debate on what people are willing to share across the platforms. One thing is for sure, billions of people will be more wary of what they share with the data giants.
There is one another basic motivation. Whatsapp has about 1.5 billion active users each month, yet it generates very little revenue for Facebook. Instagram has 1 billion monthly users, this business has very valuable advertising revenue. There must be an undisclosed masterplan behind this move, which must raise revenues.
Here are two possible [speculative] reasons this might all be going on:
Firstly, business would like to message people using these systems. Messenger presently allows automation of some interactions of business with their customers. Invoices and receipts can be sent this way, and some organisations have chatbots working successfully already.
Here is an example from my personal phone – an airport car park chatbot.
It’s not too hard to see that message could be sent by email, or to Whatsapp, but the improvement is the interaction with the chatbot – ask it for directions, or the confirmation, and the result is instant. Humans might chat and smile, but the chatbot simply responds with the answer you want, instantly.
This sort of interaction will allow companies to compete to provide super efficient customer services we cannot yet imagine. Of course the reach can therefore be worldwide, and would not bar the present users of the other services.
Whatsapp already has a platform to allow for customer services direct, BBC news uses Whatsapp for news images and remote crowd sourced news gathering, the uses of these services is gathering momentum daily.
Secondly, email is failing for personal communications. Randomised spam emails are a nuisance, as well as needing to be filtered daily. People use email for business use, but so much personal comms traffic is now via the various messaging apps, on our smartphones.
Putting it very simply, people read these massages when their phones buzzes or vibrates, somehow emails are easier to ignore, or delete later. This is a further factor which will drive businesses to communicate and provide services in this way.
On the other hand, we can expect spammers will find a way through these systems, but no doubt there will be privacy settings in place, and instant long term blocking. Apparently, the email marketing industry is already turning over more than $100 billion.
Any company, individual or spammer can guess, buy or steal your email address, then send you those unsolicited messages. But if these three services I have described above are integrated, the ecosystem created, with verified contacts, the resulting service could take over from email, possibly consigning email to the dustbin of technology history.
The rules must be that users would opt in to receiving messages from business, so we would only receive messages from the people and business that we know, interact with, and possibly have an account with already.
Life without spam email? You never know. . .
Dr Bill Nichols, Honorary Vice-President of the BDA Benevolent Fund, sat down with the GDPUK to share his experiences of helping to provide financial support for dental students, dentists, and their dependants in times of crisis.
How and why did you get involved with the BDA Benevolent Fund?
Bill: It is interesting to look back at my 22 years with the charity, now that I have retired from active duty, so to speak. In the 1980s, I was the Branch Secretary for BDA Northern Counties and, through that, I got to know the branch representative to the Benevolent Fund. I started helping him as kind of an unofficial deputy and, when he stepped down in the mid-1990s, I took over. It was often hard work, but I feel honoured to have been part of such an important backup mechanism for the dental profession.
What changes have you seen over the years and what role does the charity play within dentistry nowadays?
Bill: The primary role of the charity hasn't changed over the years. The aim is simply to provide financial assistance to dentists and their dependants who are in need. What has changed are the demographics of beneficiaries. They tend to be much younger now, of working age and there are more female beneficiaries. We’ve also seen a large increase in the number of beneficiaries with difficulties as a result of proceedings with the General Dental Council. Student need has changed too − we always were prepared to help students in their final year of study, i.e. when we knew they had a pretty good chance of qualifying. That has changed, and now we will help dental students more or less at any stage of their undergraduate studies.
What kind of support can beneficiaries apply for from the Fund?
Bill: The support comes in three forms, really. Financial support in the form of grants and loans and pastoral support. Subsistence grants are provided to keep a roof over someone's head and to provide them with food and, capital grants are given for essential items like a dishwasher or fridge, or boiler repair.
Then there’s payment of the annual retention fee for the GDC; that can be a big problem if you haven't been working for very long, such as newly qualified dentists and dentists recently restored to the register, who may also face difficulty in paying for professional indemnity. The fund can also help with CPD funding, for example for dentists who were suspended and must comply with GDC conditions to get back on the register. We settle debts sometimes, because it can better to clear debts incurring high interest, which takes some pressure off the beneficiary. Interest-free loans are also available in limited circumstances.
Away from the financial side of things, pastoral care is provided, and guidance is offered for additional or alternative support, even just providing a sympathetic ear can be a big help. Our manager and administrator spend hours on the phone every day listening to people in need.
What advice would you offer someone who is suffering financially in the dental profession?
Bill: Don't bury your head in the sand. Seek help as soon as you can, from the Benevolent Fund, from the BDA, from the Dentists' Health Support Trust, Citizens’ Advice, debt counsellors, family, colleagues; anyone you think might be able to offer support. Go and talk to someone sooner rather than later.
You have to be realistic, as well. You can't behave like a successful dentist if you haven't any income, so you must be prepared to make some difficult decisions and changes to your lifestyle.
How can people contact the Fund?
Bill: You don’t have to be member of the BDA to get help from the BDA Benevolent Fund, which exists to offer support to all dentists, so, if you, or someone you know, is facing financial difficulties – for whatever reason – contact the BDA Benevolent Fund, in confidence, on 020 7486 4994, or visit www.bdabenevolentfund.org.uk for more information.
I thought that I would mark my return to writing this blog by broaching a subject that has been annoying me (and I’m sure many others) more and more recently.
We have to accept that there are people who walk amongst us every day who are maybe not as deserving of our trust as they should be. It is inevitable that we will experience them both personally and professionally, and that they may not have the same understanding of ethics and morality as we do, and not have the same belief and value structures as we do. It is not necessarily an overt thing that can be observed in an individual, and as such, this trait has been utilised successfully (often by governments, corrupt or otherwise) throughout the years, especially at times of war and public unrest.
These are people who will betray you.
I refer mainly to the events of WW2 and the Cold War as being probably the most obvious known times of the incidence of betrayal. In both of these world events, people often found their lives and that of their families changed irrevocably by the actions of people they worked with or whom they lived amongst.
Such a culture of fear had been generated by the leadership of these countries that once normal people would revert to acting for their own protection, or to inveigle themselves with the regime in order to further themselves, by reporting neighbours, colleagues and even friends to the ‘authorities’. It came to the point that no-one could trust anyone, even members of their own families, for fear of saying or doing the wrong thing leading to extreme and often fatal outcomes. This sort of behaviour will always be present in society to some degree or another, so we should not necessarily find it unusual.
However, the reason I mention the above scenarios is because there is a sinister and similar thing occurring in dentistry today, which is acting to damage the profession hugely. It is creating an environment of distrust, a climate of fear, and preventing free speech and the raising of legitimate concerns about working conditions in dentistry.
I refer to the increasing use of what can only be termed as snitching. We all remember at school the odious type of person who had no qualms whatsoever dropping fellow schoolmates into trouble by running off to a teacher, usually trying to become some form of favoured individual. It’s the same as when you can’t fight your own battles and stand up for yourself and expect mummy or daddy to do it for you. The same thing is becoming much more of an issue in dentistry.
Some of it seems to be taking the form of the use of the ‘Screenshot’; when comments or opinions that appear on social media or the web are photographed and then used to report an individual to the GDC, or even to an employer. The use of anonymity seems to be no protection; I know of a situation that has been posted recently where a screenshot has been reported to a corporate as the anonymous poster revealed enough details for others to determine exactly which corporate was being talked about. This resulted in a potentially serious issue for the anonymous poster, when all they were doing was trying to draw attention to obvious issues (given the theme of many posts about corporates there appears to be very little smoke without fire).
I also know of a colleague who made some comments under his/her own name, only to have these screenshot by apparently someone well known in dentistry report them to the GDC for said comments, just because of a previous disagreement and some bad blood between them. Thankfully the GDC just issued a stock type of warning about social media to our colleague; but had it gone further it would have been interesting for the complainant as they would no longer have been anonymous, and we might have found out who it was.
So it seems that the GDC is now seen as a mechanism for some professionals to get revenge on one another by anonymously reporting one another. There are many satires that abound (on social media of course!) of associates being effectively threatened with being reported to the GDC when they have a disagreement with principals/corporate management, especially if they have departed under less than amicable terms with one another.
Isn’t that the same as blackmail? ‘Keep you mouth shut/do as you’re told/we’ll keep a high retainer or tell the GDC your dentistry isn’t great’? I’m sorry, but I fail to believe it is anything but blackmail. If a professional relationship has deteriorated to the point where people can no longer work together that is one thing: but to then threaten to report each other to our regulator is something I find reprehensible and without honour.
I am also aware of other cases where dentists are only too happy to push their colleagues ‘under a bus’ when they see dentistry that is perhaps a little suboptimal. In many of these cases there is a financial incentive to the first dentist to get the second dentist to pay for the work that a patient might not be able to afford. They then advise the patient to report the dentist to the GDC and/or take legal action. The first dentist seems to forget however their actions can misfire on them, as it is highly unlikely they are of such clinical prowess that they never do any suboptimal work themselves.
Now I’m absolutely not saying that we turn a blind eye to obvious problems that need to be reported to the authorities, and especially where there is a legitimate reason to suspect patient harm is occurring. This is where we DO have to take professional responsibility to our profession to report a colleague ourselves, but not get a patient to do it for us.
But reporting someone to corporate management because a valid concern is being raised and not listened to, and then someone just asking the advice of a hive mind? Using a social media policy as a mechanism to prevent free speech?
Having spies on social media is no different to not to being able trust your neighbours in the Cold War Soviet Union to not tell the KGB.
It certainly appears that the upper echelons of some corporate dental companies has little or no idea about what is actually going on at the tooth-face or if they do they just ignore it – which is probably worse), and they seem to forget fellow professionals will want to discuss with their colleagues these types of situations so that they don’t feel isolated, bullied, or even warn others off working in these places. It appears this lack of insight, coupled with unapproachable and inaccessible high level management leads to frustrations that are then exposed on social media. Personally I have no problem with this as it draws the profession’s attention to things that should be exposed if we are to retain our professional integrity and standing.
But to then use a social media policy to effectively gag a person reminds me of the saying ‘the beatings will continue until morale improves’….
The same is true of those who screenshot and report to the GDC. Freedom of speech is still supposedly a right in this country, and whilst it is one that can have consequences if legal and moral boundaries are crossed, it is still the right of an individual to express themselves. In years gone by, many things would be said at dental gatherings and the pub hat might well have been contentious but said in the heat of the moment; however I don’t remember people standing around with recording devices or making shorthand notes to then use against somebody. It is however now so easy with modern technology to take a screenshot and send it merrily on its way to the GDC and watch the as the drama unfolds from a distance. When this is used as a form of revenge against a colleague for a business dispute or some form of personal disagreement, then it can only be described as the lowest of the low, especially given the draconian manner with which our regulator polices our profession.
And what about those dentists who advise that patients report their previous dentist to the GDC/Solicitors for less than the true professional reason of patient safety? Those who do it because they feel they are somehow superior and have never made a mistake themselves? There could be a multitude of reasons for such behaviour, including financial ones (and not those of the patient I hasten to add).
Have they themselves never tried their best with a patient only to realise they are quite possibly the most challenging and difficult patient ever who consistently misses appointments, and considered this might be a reason? If there is a real patient safety issue then they are obliged themselves to inform the GDC as this is part of our professional responsibility to one another in keeping the public’s faith in us. The fact they get the patient to do it must somehow make them feel they have absolved themselves of the guilt of dropping a fellow professional in it if their reasons are not completely pure and without bias.
I have to reiterate that I am not suggesting a closing of our professional ranks so that problems are never reported; what I am actually saying is that there are some in our profession who cannot and should not be trusted these days because of their own motives and that depresses me.
I sincerely believe these people do not have the same values as the majority of the profession, and are likely to be entirely self-centred and self-absorbed individuals with little insight or no into their own failings. We can only hope that karma eventually serves them a suitable outcome, and they too then find themselves hoist by their own petard at some point in the future. The French at the end of WW2 had a fairly direct way of dealing with collaborators and informants, so history does tend to suggest what goes around comes around for these people.
They are one of the reasons there is a climate of fear where the GDC is concerned, and the GDC will happily use these turncoats to justify the persecution of the profession, as it gives them the legitimacy to say we can’t be trusted to regulate ourselves.
They are one of the reasons that indemnity costs are increasing; because they sow the seed in the patients mind there is money to be made to correct their dental issues. They seem to forget they too are human and can also err… but then they would need insight to realise that, and to understand the GDC is not there to replace dealing with a matter face to face professionally.
They are the reason I sometimes feel ashamed to be a member of this once proud profession.
They are Pariahs.
[ And I bet someone screenshots this article :) ]
Johnson & Johnson is delighted to unveil the details of its revolutionary new LISTERINE® Go! Tabs to dental health care professionals, ahead of the launch to consumers in the UK.
Chewable LISTERINE® Go! Tabs offer an innovative way to get the whole mouth feeling clean and fresh anytime, anywhere, as a handy addition to – not a replacement for – twice-daily mechanical cleaning at home.
Ninety per cent of halitosis is a result of the production of volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs) by oral bacteria.1
Tackling this problem, when chewed, for example after a meal, at social gatherings, before a meeting or after a coffee, LISTERINE® Go! Tabs transform from solid to liquid in seconds, neutralising odours for long-lasting fresh breath.
Johnson & Johnson’s oral care portfolio includes the familiar brand of mouthwash, LISTERINE®, with variants suitable for daily use as an integral adjunct to mechanical cleaning to deliver an optimised daily regimen. In addition, the LISTERINE® Advanced Defence range is available to help dental professionals deliver advanced treatment outcomes for patients.
Johnson & Johnson, the maker of LISTERINE®, is committed to supporting dental health care professionals in their efforts to improve patients’ oral health. For further information, visit www.listerineprofessional.co.uk.
As the main sponsor of Mouth Cancer Action Month – organised by the Oral Health Foundation - Simplyhealth Professionals is once again fuelling awareness of mouth cancer through its #BlueLipSelfie campaign this November.
Fun, striking, and easy to do, the #BlueLipSelfie campaign encourages dental professionals, patients, and the general public to wear blue lips as a visible sign of support and get people talking about mouth cancer. The increasing popularity of #BlueLipSelfie provides dental professionals with a unique springboard to talk to their patients about the risks, symptoms and prevention of this devastating disease.
Henry Clover, Chief Dental Officer at Simplyhealth Professionals, said: “We’re delighted with the growing support for our #BlueLipSelfie campaign and Mouth Cancer Action Month. Dental professionals in particular are really getting behind the campaign and we love seeing the creative selfies that are shared on social media and on our gallery every year. We’re extremely proud to have made excellent progress in raising awareness of the disease over the years, but the rising figures of mouth cancer cases still speak for themselves, and there is much work to be done.
“While Mouth Cancer Action Month and #BlueLipSelfie provide a brilliant focal point to shine a spotlight on the disease, it’s crucial that dental professionals keep the conversation about mouth cancer going throughout the year. Recent research* by the Oral Health Foundation and Simplyhealth Professionals revealed that 71% of UK adults said their dentist had never spoken to them about mouth cancer. We can and should improve this as a profession.”
In the same survey, figures revealed that awareness of mouth cancer amongst the public is still low. 75% of UK adults don’t know any of the symptoms of mouth cancer. In addition, research conducted by Simplyhealth Professionals and YouGov** discovered that 83% of UK adults said they never check their own mouths for signs of mouth cancer.
“When this is added to the number of adults not regularly visiting a dentist, it’s perhaps easy to see why mouth cancer is often only spotted at far-too-late stages,” says Henry. “Early detection of mouth cancer is pivotal in fighting against this disease and makes an enormous difference to survival rates. The more we can get health professionals and the public talking about mouth cancer, the more lives we can save, and we hope that #BlueLipSelfie continues to fuel those conversations.”
Dr Nigel Carter, Chief Executive of the Oral Health Foundation, commented: “We are extremely grateful that Simplyhealth Professionals is once again a key supporter of Mouth Cancer Action Month. With a joint approach from the dental profession, we can all help raise public awareness of the signs and symptoms of mouth cancer and help ensure that every patient is checked for signs of the disease. This should increase the likelihood of the disease being detected early, with treatment more likely to result in a positive outcome for the patient.”
#BlueLipSelfie is easy, quick and fun to do and allows everyone to visibly show their support. To take part in #BlueLipSelfie all practices have to do is take a photo of themselves, their patients or their teams with blue lips and share it on Twitter or Instagram using the campaign’s hashtag: #BlueLipSelfie. Practices and patients can also directly upload a selfie to the specially created microsite and gallery at www.bluelipselfie.co.uk or customise their photo with fun blue cartoon lips using the app.
For more information on Mouth Cancer Action Month and how you can get involved please visit www.mouthcancer.org.
*Source: Online survey of 2,002 UK adults, conducted by Atomik Research on behalf of the Oral Health Foundation and Simplyhealth Professionals, September 2018
**Source: YouGov Plc, on behalf of Simplyhealth. Total sample size was 5,264 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 12th -19th February 2018. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).
Boundaries for Life and sponsors, Simplyhealth Professionals, are celebrating their most successful season of health checks this summer, helped by the introduction of new diagnostic software.
Founded in 2010 by Dr Chet Trivedy, a dual-qualified dentist and doctor, Boundaries for Life offers free health checks at major cricket fixtures throughout the UK. Made possible through a team of volunteer health professionals, spectators and ground staff are checked for signs and risks of health issues, including mouth cancer, blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, heart age, and obesity.
Commenting on this year’s success, which ran between April and September at high profile cricket venues including Lord’s, Edgbaston, Old Trafford and the Ageas Bowl to name a few, Chet Trivedy said: “It’s been a fantastic year with the team conducting over 250 checks and raising awareness of good general health and oral health with a huge audience.
“It was a particularly exciting season, as this was the first year that we conducted heart age checks in addition to our regular checks. This provides users with an opportunity to know how old their heart is medically, compared to their actual age. Many people were shocked that their heart was a lot older than they thought it was. As we were using a software system to calculate the heart ages - provided by Health Diagnostics - every user had the opportunity to understand how they could reduce their heart age. This was not possible in previous years as the health checks were not automated.”
As well as a detailed medical check from a health care professional, users also benefit from a mouth cancer check from a dentist – many of whom were volunteers from Simplyhealth Professionals’ network of member dentists. At the end of the checks, each user is given a five-page health report and access to an online interactive dashboard.
Henry Clover, Chief Dental Officer at Simplyhealth Professionals, said: “Supporting Boundaries for Life is a great opportunity to champion a very important cause, as well as to highlight Simplyhealth’s approach to preventive wellbeing. We’re delighted and very grateful that many of our member dentists volunteered their valuable time to assist with mouth cancer checks.
“The health checks offer the chance to identify people who might be at risk of future health problems at an early stage, particularly those who might not be regularly visiting a dentist or GP. Importantly, the health checks help users to understand the links between general and oral health. It encourages them to reassess lifestyle choices such as alcohol consumption, smoking and diet, which could potentially contribute to issues such as mouth cancer, diabetes, and high blood pressure.”
Not only does Boundaries for Life provide the means to help users to understand their current and future health, the initiative also has the additional benefit of collating valuable insights into the nation’s health. Data insights discovered that 34% of users were obese, 42% had a raised BMI, and 70% had a waist measurement that is considered to be medium or high risk for diabetes. Shockingly, almost half of users (48%) were at an increased risk of developing diabetes according to the Diabetes UK risk scoring system. Furthermore, one in four users had raised blood pressure, and 40% had raised cholesterol.
As a result of their health check, nearly 50 users were referred to see a GP, dentist or other health professional for further advice or treatment - potentially saving lives.
“We’re proud to have helped so many people, but these figures highlight that there is still a lot of work to do,” says Chet. “We’re keen to keep building on our success and provide an ever-broader range of checks at next season’s cricket fixtures. The checks are only possible due to our fantastic team of volunteers, including Simplyhealth Professionals member dentists. They have all promised to do more next year and that is the best endorsement we can get.”
For more information, visit http://boundariesforlife.co.uk/
For 145 years we’ve been helping people to make the most of life through better everyday health. In 2017 Simplyhealth and Denplan united under one Simplyhealth brand and today we’re proud to be the UK’s leading provider of health cash plans, Denplan dental payment plans and animal health plans.
We help over three million people in the UK access the health and care products, services and support that they need, when they need them and at a price they can afford.
We’re proud to donate 10% of our pre-tax profits to health-related charitable activities every year, and this amounted to over £1 million in 2017. Our Simplyhealth Great Run Series partnership raised an additional £42.6 million for charity.
Simplyhealth is a trading name of Simplyhealth Access, which is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.
Simplyhealth Professionals is the UK’s leading dental payment plan specialist with more than 6,500 member dentists nationwide caring for approximately 1.7 million patients registered to a Denplan product.
Simplyhealth Professionals provides the following range of leading Denplan dental payment plans under the Denplan name:
Simplyhealth Professionals also provide a wide range of professional services for its member dentists and their practice teams, including the Denplan Quality Programme and Denplan Excel Accreditation Programme. Plus regulatory advice, business and marketing consultancy services and networking opportunities.
Dentist enquiries telephone: 0800 169 9962.
For patient enquiries telephone: 0800 401 402
more sporting events in the future, dependent on their team and their funding.
Twitter @Boundaries4Life https://twitter.com/boundaries4life
Twitter @SHP_Dentists https://twitter.com/shp_dentists
Lancashire Foundation http://foundation.lancashirecricket.co.uk
Healthy Stadia http://healthystadia.eu/ - Enabling sports clubs to influence health and behaviour.
Blood biochemistry tests https://www.bhr.co.uk/ - small machines which run rapid tests of blood biochemistry.
What is HbA1c? https://www.diabetes.co.uk/what-is-hba1c.html
(How The General Dental Council Fouled Up – BIG TIME)
Anyone who read my blog of a couple of weeks ago, which attempted to satirise the General Dental Council’s recent online opinion survey, will probably not be surprised by the alacrity with which I have jumped on the opportunity to outline the following episode, which beset an unfortunate general dental practitioner a few days ago.
The following events are true. The main action took place on Friday 12th October, 2018. The names of the “very professional” GDC employees have been withheld and the name of the protagonist has been changed. With a deferential nod of acknowledgement of the recent Royal Wedding, I will call the protagonist, who is very well known to me, Eugenie. I thank her profusely for granting me permission to relate her sorry tale to you.
Eugenie is a GDP currently working in general dental practice in a dental corporate. Her precise location she would like to also keep secret, but she describes it as ‘Moderately gentile, Middle Earth.’
Eugenie has been an NHS dental surgeon for 30 years and after a career as a full-time GDP, she decided earlier this year, to take early retirement and “escape the nightmare of NHS corporate dentistry.”
Eugenie being ‘exceptionally anally retentive’ (her words), she put in the appropriate pensions paperwork to the NHS Business Services Authority, informed her employer of her intentions and also the local NHS Area Team.
The latter irritated her somewhat, since she received communications twice from the Area Team, asking her if she was taking ‘24 hour retirement’ – her Area Team being unable to fully comprehend and understand the phrase “taking full retirement.” The Area Team also asked twice if she could confirm she had told her ‘employers’ of her intentions – the Area Team also failing to remember the concept of self-employed associates.
Being mindful that the GDC had taken over £900 quid off her earlier in the year for 12 months of exquisitely executed administrative services, Eugenie wanted to get her money’s worth and decided to retire on December 31st, 2018. Remember that date, it is important. That date was disseminated to all those that needed to know at the business end of dentistry, and she decided as a conscientious i-dotting and t-crossing individual, she would also inform the GDC of her desire to be removed from the General Dental Register on……come on, I told you to remember the date…yes, correct, the 31st December.
Ten days or so after submitting her letter, the GDC sent a form back to her via email, for ticking and signing and posting. Eugenie was surprised to find that she didn’t have the final say as to whether she could remove her name from the Dental Register. It was up to the GDC to decide if she had a valid reason to leave and the letter advised her that she would be informed of the GDC’s decision on whether to remove her name, in due course. Eugenie speculated that this was possibly to prevent someone in a spot of forthcoming bother, from removing his or her name before the GDC had the opportunity to strike them off themselves.
On the form, Eugenie was adamant that she made it clear she was removing her name due to retirement AND noted on the form, her desire for that procedure to be carried on after….come on…..anyone….31st December, 2018.
Skip forward to last Friday, 12th October. Eugenie was on an ‘early’ and by 9.45am had seen a bridge prep, a filling and two examination patients. It was the custom at the corporate practice Eugenie works at, for reception staff to hand letters to dentists at lunchtime, or earlier if the letter looked like it needed early attention. On Friday, the head receptionist handed Eugenie an unopened letter marked ‘General Dental Council.’ Eugenie nearly tossed it behind the computer monitor for later perusal, suspecting it was a letter confirming her removal at the end of the year. But something, fortunately, made her open it, because it was a letter from a ‘Registration Operations Officer, dated 10th October informing Eugenie that she had been removed from the Dental Register as from 9th October – TWO DAYS EARLIER. This mean that Eugenie had not only worked illegally as a dentist that day, but since the previous Tuesday. In other words, she had been, without her knowledge, breaking the law for four days, with, presumably, invalidated dental indemnity insurance.
She was chilled to the bone when she looked at the GDC register online and found she definitely wasn’t registered.
The practice manager was called. Eugenie and the manager agreed that she had to stop work immediately and her day was cancelled. The next patient, sitting patiently outside her surgery was fortunately very nice about the fact that she had wasted a forty mile round-trip, and happily rebooked.
An understandably irritated Eugenie then rang the GDC and spoke to a ‘very nice lady’ who eventually told her that on neither Eugenie’s letter or returned form, had she informed the GDC of her retirement date. After Eugenie’s protestations that she knew she had put the date on both pieces of correspondence and following the GDC representatives’ ‘consultations with colleagues,’ the GDC lady apologised for the ‘mix up’ – she had apparently been ‘looking at another person’s letter’ when she had given the previous statement that there was no date on Eugenie’s correspondence. The GDC lady said that a member of the Registrations Team would ring her back.
After one hour, at 10.45am, there was no call and Eugenie rang again, this time speaking to an equally pleasant GDC worker. She couldn’t apparently raise the Registrations Team and so Eugenie left her with the chilling message “I’ll be back.”
At 11.45am, still no joy, but this time the original person Eugenie had spoken to, answered the phone. She said the Registrations team were at that very moment looking into the matter and would definitely be in touch in the afternoon. By this time, Eugenie had decided not to leave the practice until the GDC had telephoned on her mobile, not wanting to be caught out having to take a call in the car. She said she spent the whole morning whining to colleagues and swearing a lot, as well as threatening the Registrations people by email with ‘action’ if she was not reinstated immediately.
Around midday, a sheepish, very polite gentleman from the Registrations team telephoned Eugenie and apologised profusely for the mix-up and reassured her that she would be reinstated immediately and that her name would reappear on the register online, after midnight.
What confused Eugenie was that this particular Registrations officer gave her a totally different explanation as to why the mix-up had happened. The first GDC worker said that the wrong registrant’s application had been accessed initially, while this Registrations man was saying that while Eugenie’s first letter to the GDC clearly stated the date of deregistration had been seen and noted, a second registrations officer had processed the GDC form without seeing the original letter and that form did not state the date. To Eugenie’s recall, she did date the form, the need for the date being critically important.
On having an early finish on Friday, Eugenie fired off an email and recorded delivery letter to the GDC, asking for a scanned or hard copy of her returned form – a form they still had in their possession and had apparently accessed on Friday. This letter was mainly to check and reassure herself that she wasn’t actually going insane, so sure was she that she had put the date carefully on the form, which the GDC were adamant she hadn’t.
Eugenie checked online on Saturday morning and found that her name was back on the Dental Register.
So all’s well….or is it?
One of the primary roles of the General Dental Council is to, (to quote the recent survey):
“Maintain(s) a register of dentists and dental care professionals, and check they meet requirements.”
I dunno, but I would have THOUGHT that if there was any ambiguity with regard to a dental professional’s intended removal, they would have double-checked with the practitioner. The GDC had responded to the original request for removal by sending the form to Eugenie, so surely that correspondence could have been looked at? After all, it is the most final act in a dental professional’s working life.
The other question regards the first GDC worker’s statement that she had been looking at another registrant’s letter! What???? Another letter on Eugenie’s file belonged to another registrant? I mean, GDPR and all that, surely???
I REALLY hope you all took the opportunity to fill in that survey, and if you did, you give them Hell when they start the telephone survey.
Happy retirement, Eugenie xxx
To learn all about the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions, all you need to do is attend the BDA’s roadshow, sponsored by Johnson & Johnson, which will soon be on its way to Birmingham and London.
Under the umbrella of ‘Periodontal disease management now and in the future’, Professors Nicola West (pictured) and Tim Newton will offer unique insight into periodontal care and treatment.
Prof. West, Professor/Honorary Consultant in Restorative Dentistry (Periodontology) at Bristol Dental Hospital, will be speaking about ‘Periodontal disease management: modifying diagnostic and communication behaviour for better oral health outcome’, including the new classification, and answering delegates’ questions.
Adding to this, Tim Newton, Professor of Psychology as Applied to Dentistry at King’s College London Dental Institute, will explore ‘Better oral health outcomes through changing behaviour: what does it all mean for me and my practice?’
The Leeds roadshow is currently underway but there are some places still available for the Birmingham (19th October) and London (7th December) events. For further information and to book your place, please visit https://bda.org/events/member-series.
PERIODONTOLOGY IN GENERAL DENTAL PRACTICE
A New, Simplified Classification System For General Dental Practitioners
We present here, the results of a thirty-five minute workshop on new periodontal classifications compiled by the only few General Dental Practitioner’s we could find that were even remotely interested in gums and jawbone. This is the first time GDP’s have been bothered to categorise (or take notice of) gum conditions and we feel it will be a more useful day-to-day guide than those new classifications issued recently by the American Academy of Periodontology and the European Federation of Periodontology. The workshop was carried out during a Curry Club Thursday at the Salisbury Wetherspoon’s.
Brian wrote everything down on a beer mat because the screen on his iPhone stopped working after his ios12 update went pear-shaped. We wrote down everything we could think of regarding perio, without Googling it, not that Brian could anyway.
The patient has no inflammation, deposits or staining. This has nothing to do with you or your ‘diligent’ care. Either the patient has been to another practice, or is just extremely lucky. Treatment – NHS – none required. Private – One to two sessions with the hygienist.
The patient has a little bit of plaque or stain that is forgivable bearing in mind the goofiness she presents with and having to control the three kids that are currently all trying to make a human pyramid on the nurse’s chair. Teeny bit of bleeding when you bodged it with the BPE probe, but no calculus. Treatment – NHS – MAYBE a polish. OH advice – “You’re missing a bit – get an electric.” Private – Two to three sessions with the hygienist.
The patient has dirty-filthy-muk-muk everywhere as usual – I say everywhere, it’s mainly on the lower linguals of three to three (there MAY be other stuff but you didn’t look anywhere else). Some crowding is hindering OH, but the patient doesn’t really make an effort. Neither do you really. Treatment – NHS – get the blunt hand scaler out. No air scale since the phantom of the practice has bent all the inserts (how DOES that happen?) Private – Three monthly scales. This proves to the GDC disciplinary panel that you were providing continuing care.
Even YOU can’t ignore the dirty-filthy-muk-muk between the 6’s and you are too scared to push the BPE probe in too far in case you hit a ‘3’ and end up having to do a full perio chart (even if you COULD find a perio probe). Treatment – NHS – See what you claimed previously and see if you can get a Band 2 perio out of it. Order an air scaler and hide it so it doesn’t get either nicked, bent, or boils the water as it passes through. Private – This pays the hygienist nurse’s wages for six months.
Punched out interproximal gingivae, necrotic look, breath that would stop a charging rhinoceros in its tracks at 100 metres. This is the first time you have asked if the patient smokes or is under stress. Treatment – NHS – Metronidazole and smoking cessation advice – SORTED! Private – The patient doesn’t return after the Flagyl.
You can breath a sigh of relief. It’s not you, it’s hormones. Treatment – NHS – A quick prophylaxis. Private – You can’t, she’s exempt. It doesn’t seem right.
This does not exist. Occurs because the patient uses a brush like a Brillo Pad and doesn’t try and get in between the teeth. This is YOUR fault.
You have inherited this patient from another practice or a colleague, so breathe a sigh of relief. Pre-existing bone loss, but patient is on top of OH. Treatment - NHS – Give the patient a pat on the back. Private – Two-monthly scales with the hygienist under local.
As you are flicking around the lower incisors with a blunt sickle, you notice the lower right one is a bit wobby. You sneakily apply a little bit of lateral force with the scaler to all the teeth and discover ALL are a bit wobbly. Treatment – NHS - As you were, but in the notes, emphasise that you reinforced the need for interdental OH and daily TePe use. Private – Refer to the hygienist and on the prescription note “Hygiene has slipped a bit.”
Your pathetic broken splint is cutting into the patient’s tongue. Treatment – NHS – You casually mention the phenomenon known as ‘Immediate Dentures’ and hope the patient doesn’t listen to local commercial radio and catches an advert for dental litigation lawyers. Private – Not appropriate. The hygienist is a stickler and might report ‘concerns’ to the authorities.
You check how long you have treated the patient and then check your dental indemnity subscriptions are up-to-date. Treatment – NHS – Ask lots of questions about gum disease in the patient’s parents and plant the seed that the condition is inherited. Private – If the patient asks if they need to see the hygienist, either say you haven’t got one, or price the patient out of it. You really don’t trust that hygienist. Her eyes are too close together.
Also known as ‘chronic’ periodontitis. Has been there forever and you haven’t really addressed it. Treatment - NHS - Pull yourself together and do something about it before you retire. Private - NOOO! You keep checking the hygienist’s scrubs pockets for digital voice recorders.
Also known as Peri Peri Periodontitis. You diagnose that a bit of Nando’s chicken has got stuck and irritated the gum. Treatment – NHS – Pull the bit of chicken out (preferably with your eyes closed – Ewww Ewww Ewww) and claim Acute Mucosal. Private – Squeeze in with the hygienist and get them to pull the chicken out. Charge £60.00.
Dental practices are currently facing another major legislative change on 1st October when the Insurance Distribution Directive (IDD) comes into effect, which has caused much discussion in the industry and a range of different approaches. IDD is a change in government legislation around insurance products designed to give consumers greater choice and clarity when purchasing insurance products.
Caroline Coleman, Managing Director of Simplyhealth Professionals said: “As a trusted partner, it is our responsibility to provide our members with advice and support on new regulation, and clinical and business issues. Everything that we do as a customer-led organisation is in the best interests of our dentists and their patients. This is why we have taken the time to fully understand IDD and its implications.”
Simplyhealth Professionals has concluded that in order to comply with the new legislation and give patients the choice that the IDD demands, from 17th September for all new joiners, their supplementary insurance product - historically included as standard within Denplan payment plans – has now become optional.
Sandy Brown, Director of Dentists at Simplyhealth Professionals, said: “We have done everything we can to follow the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulations to make sure that we comply with the new IDD regulations. Giving patients the choice of whether they feel the supplementary insurance is the right product for them is the essence of IDD. It’s really important for those patients that opt in to be reassured in the knowledge that their claims will definitely be paid out according to the terms and conditions. We are working with our member dentists to make sure that they understand the new regulation, how it affects them and their patients, and has minimum disruption to day to day business.”
Simplyhealth Professionals offers patients dental emergency and injury cover that has the protection of a regulated product, with guaranteed pay-outs for valid claims and access to an independent appeals process.
Sandy Brown said: “Opting for insurance seems to me a very minimal monthly amount for absolute peace of mind. The main benefit of insurance is that patients have the legal protection to ensure that payments they are entitled to are paid out.”
About Simplyhealth Professionals:
Simplyhealth Professionals is the UK’s leading dental payment plan specialist with more than 6,500 member dentists nationwide caring for approximately 1.7 million patients registered to a Denplan product.
Simplyhealth Professionals also provide a wide range of professional services for its member dentists and their practice teams, including the Denplan Quality Programme and Denplan Excel Accreditation Programme. Plus regulatory advice, business and marketing consultancy services and networking opportunities.
Dentist enquiries telephone: 0800 169 9962.
For patient enquiries telephone: 0800 401 402
For details of all of our products, visit www.simplyhealthprofessionals.co.uk
For 145 years we’ve been helping people to make the most of life through better everyday health. In 2017 Simplyhealth and Denplan united under one Simplyhealth brand and today we’re proud to be the UK’s leading provider of health cash plans, Denplan dental payment plans and pet health plans.
We help over three million people in the UK access the health and care products, services and support that they need, when they need them and at a price they can afford.
1m health cash plan customers
1.5m patients with a Denplan payment plan
6,500 member dentists
1,900 member vets
1 million animals covered
11,000 corporate clients
We’re proud to donate 10% of our pre-tax profits to health-related charitable activities every year, and this amounted to over £1 million in 2017. Our Simplyhealth Great Run Series partnership raised an additional £42.6 million for charity.
Simplyhealth is a trading name of Simplyhealth Access, which is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.
On 13th August 2018 the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the case of Dr Bawa-Garba v the General Medical Council. The GMC had successfully appealed against the decision of the original Medical Practitioners Tribunal not to erase Dr Bawa-Garba, but to suspend her from practicing for 12 months. The Court of Appeal upheld the original sanction, ruling that erasure was not appropriate in this tragic case.
Dr Bawa-Garba was convicted by a jury before the criminal courts of gross negligence manslaughter, for behaviour which the trial judge felt was so serious that it should be marked by a sentence of imprisonment, albeit suspended. Yet neither the MPT nor the Court of Appeal felt it necessary to erase her from the register. This left many wondering what would it take for public confidence in the profession to be damaged, if not gross negligence manslaughter?
On 18th February 2011 Dr Bawa-Garba was on duty at the Leicester Royal Infirmary Hospital. She had just returned from a period of maternity leave and had completed two shifts back to back.
Jack Adcock, a 6 year old boy, was admitted to the hospital at 10.15am that morning. When he attended he was unresponsive and limp. Jack presented with dehydration caused by vomiting and diarrhoea, his breathing was shallow and his lips slightly blue. Jack had a history of illnesses. He had been diagnosed with Downs Syndrome from birth. He also had a hole in his heart that required surgery. He was taking enalapril which meant he was more susceptible to coughs and colds.
Dr Bawa-Garba was the most senior junior doctor on duty and Jack was under her care for the next 8-9 hours. Dr Bawa-Garba was assisted by a nurse, Isabel Amaro and the ward sister, Theresa Taylor.
Jack was originally diagnosed as having gastro-enteritis and dehydration. After an x-ray it was determined that Jack in fact had pneumonia and was treated with anti-biotics. As a result of this not being picked up immediately, Jack’s body went into septic shock which caused his heart to fail. Despite attempts to resuscitate him, he died at 9.20pm. There was also a mistaken belief, perpetuated by Dr Bawa-Garba, that Jack had a ‘do not resuscitate’ in place, which hindered his care.
Initially Dr Bawa-Garba was informed that the Crown Prosecution Service would not prosecute. However, following the inquest into Jack’s death in 2013, the CPS reviewed its decision and in December 2014 she was informed she would be charged. Ms Amaro and Ms Taylor were also charged.
During this time Dr Bawa-Garba remained employed at the hospital.
At the hearing the prosecution advanced a number of failures by Dr Bawa-Garba, which it said led to her being grossly negligent. Dr Bawa-Garba’s defence was that Jack’s death was as a result of hospital computer failures, lack of staff and failures by others.
The trial judge directed the jury that the prosecution had to show that what Dr Bawa-Garba did was ‘truly exceptionally bad.’
On 4th November 2015 Dr Bawa-Garba was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. Ms Amaro was convicted of the same offence.
On 14th December 2015 Dr Bawa-Garba was sentenced to two year’s imprisonment, suspended for two years. She was ordered to pay £25,000 in legal costs. The remarks of the judge when sentencing were ‘there was a limit to how far these issues could be explored in the trial, but there may be some force in the comment that yours was a responsibility that was shared with others’.
Fitness to Practice Proceedings
Under Fitness to Practice Rules a certificate of conviction is conclusive evidence of the offence committed and cannot be challenged. The role therefore of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal is to determine if fitness to practice is impaired and if so what sanction to apply.
On 20th February 2017 a hearing was convened to assess whether Dr Bawa-Garba’s fitness to practice was impaired. Dr Bawa-Garba did not give evidence at that hearing. On 22nd February 2017 the Medical Practitioners Tribunal held that Dr-Bawa-Garba’s fitness to practice was impaired. It found that she ‘fell far below the standards expected of a competent doctor’ at her level and that the conduct had brought the profession into disrepute. However, it went on to say that the clinical failures, although serious, were capable of being remedied and had been addressed.
On 12th June 2017 the same panel reconvened to consider sanction. Again Dr Bawa-Garba did not give evidence; the panel commented ‘the Tribunal was unable to conclude that you had complete insight into your action as it did not hear from you directly’. On 13th June 2017 it issued its decision to suspend Dr Bawa-Garba immediately for 12 months, subject to review. The panel confirmed that it had to bear in mind that the sanctions were not to be punitive but to protect patients and the public interest. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal weighed up the following factors:
|Mitigation factors||Aggravating Factors|
|Unblemished record||Failures were numerous|
|Good Character prior to the event||Failures continued over a period of hours|
|Remained employed by the trust until conviction||A failure to re-assess Jack|
|No concerns raised regarding her clinical competency||Jack was a vulnerable patient given his age and disability|
|Length of time since offence||Expressed condolences but did not apologise|
|Covering CAU, emergency department and the ward|
|Systematic failures identified by the Trust in its independent report of the incident|
|No evidence actions were deliberate or reckless|
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal said ‘whilst your actions fell far short of the standards expected and were a causative factor in the early death of Patient A, they took place in the context of wider failings.’
The GMC appealed the decision. The High Court overturned the Medical Practitioners Tribunal decision and replaced it with a sanction of erasure. In essence the judge felt that the panel had not taken into account the true force of the jury’s finding of ‘truly exceptionally bad’ behaviour on the part of Dr Bawa-Garba.
Dr Bawa-Garba appealed. Her grounds of appeal were that the court had erred:
The Court of Appeal confirmed that
The task of the jury was to decide on the guilt or absence of guilt of Dr Bawa-Garba having regard to her past conduct. The task of the Tribunal, looking to the future, was to decide what sanction would most appropriately meet the statutory objective of protecting the public pursuant to the over-arching objectives… to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety and well-being of the public.
As a result of this finding, the Court of Appeal held it was wrong of the court to presume a conviction of manslaughter should lead to erasure save in exceptional circumstances and to preclude evidence of systematic failures within the hospital at the time of the incident.
The Court of Appeal overturned the court’s decision and re-issued the 12 month suspension as the appropriate sanction in this case.
Having read the judgment it is clear Dr Bawa-Garba was well regarded amongst her peers; indeed a fund set up by junior doctors raised over £200,000 to go towards her legal fees. The incident itself was deemed a one-off incident; a lapse in clinical judgment in an otherwise unblemished history. She had taken remedial action in respect of any issues. There were also failures on the part of others and the hospital itself.
If the public had all of this information, it would no doubt agree Dr Bawa-Garba’s sanction was fair.
Laura Pearce, Senior Solicitor
When browsing the news I’m always astounded at how many articles there are about the lax approach to oral care among the general populace of the UK. Whilst some of these headlines are more than likely sensationalised by the media to draw in an audience, there is often a grain of truth hidden amongst the hyperbole, and one article in particular that caught my eye recently detailed some harrowing statistics that couldn’t be ignored.
A result of the recent National Dental Survey performed by BUPA Dental Care, the article revealed that over 2 million UK adults hadn’t been to the dentist in over a decade.[i] I personally find it almost unbelievable that in this day and age there are so many people out there who are willing to ignore their oral health and avoid seeking out the proper guidance necessary to ensure that their teeth remain healthy, especially for such a long period of time.
I think in many of these cases people believe in the adage “don’t fix what isn’t broken” and if they aren’t experiencing any pain or visible signs of decay they assume that their mouths are in good condition. As professionals, we know this isn’t necessarily the case. However, when delving further into the article it seems that more than a third of British people mask or ignore dental pain with the use of painkillers instead of curing it with a visit to the dentist. This is an astonishing statistic that suggests that what we really need to do is go back to education and make it clear to these people that prevention and treatment are always better options than pain.
The findings of the survey revealed that many British people skip brushing their teeth if they are in a rush and that a third of them never floss or visit the hygienist either. In a way these statistics are less surprising – how often have you told a patient they need to floss and they return with no change? It still indicates a widespread problem that we, as professionals, need to do our part in changing. Perhaps to combat these statistics we need to explore new methods of guidance to help guarantee that the message really sinks in.
One method that I think could make a big difference is a wider use of dental photography. Not only does this ensure patients will be able to visually see the damage that they are causing to their teeth, but it is also a useful way to track the progress of any treatments you offer. These photos are also useful marketing materials for the practice as long as you ensure that your patients give you the proper consent. This is especially great as with the ever-growing rise in platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, these visual aids can really help people discover what your team are capable of and even bring in new business.
Another method worth exploring is the introduction of technology with visual aids such as animations and diagrams. Not only do these help educate patients by detailing procedures in a way that they can understand, but they also prove to be invaluable resources when faced with patients who have been repeatedly given advice and don’t seem to take it on-board.
Whatever the reason behind this wide-scale neglect it’s from clear reports like these that there is more work to be done. Professionals need to be vigilant when encouraging good oral care habits in our patients, and if that means we should explore new methods to make them aware of the dangers, then it’s something worth considering.
Of course, patients too must take some responsibility, however, when making it clear that regular brushing and interdental cleaning are a necessary part of maintenance and giving the best service we possibly can, we can reassure those who have avoided the dentist for years that seeing us isn’t as scary as they may think. Hopefully these measures will help minimise these worrying statistics detailed by the report over time.
For further information please call EndoCare on 020 7224 0999
Or visit www.endocare.co.uk
EndoCare, led by Dr Michael Sultan, is one of the UK’s most trusted Specialist Endodontist practices. Through the use of the latest technologies and techniques, the highly-trained team can offer exceptional standards of care – always putting the patient first. What’s more, EndoCare is a dependable referral centre, to which dentists from across the country send their patients for the best in specialist endodontic treatment.
[i] Dentistry.co.uk. Over 2 Million Brits Haven’t Seen a Dentist in More Than a Decade. Link: http://www.dentistry.co.uk/2018/05/25/2-million-brits-havent-seen-dentist-decade/ [Last accessed june 18].
As concerns mount over recruitment issues and impaired growth of dental businesses, assistance from a specialist agency with dental experience is more vital than ever.
Dental Elite has many years collective experience across the team, and with a customer rating of 4.8 out of 5 it is one of the profession’s must trusted recruitment, sales and acquisitions, valuations and finance agencies.
“I would definitely recommend Dental Elite to others, and would certainly give them a call if I ever needed to find another job in the future,” says associate Justin George.
Veronica Balbontin who sold her practice through Leah Turner and Sue Humphrey also has high praise for Dental Elite. “The transition was seamless, and I am really happy with the service I received from both agents. They were both extremely helpful and very professional; I couldn't have completed the process without them.”
If you are experiencing recruitment issues, looking for a new role, or want to sell or buy a practice then visit Dental Elite on stand E26 at the BDIA Dental Showcase 2018.
Window Shopping or Serious Shopping?
Dental Showcase takes place the first week of October and if you haven’t already registered, now’s the time to do so. If you went a couple of years ago and are concerned that not much will have changed, then think again. With no other UK event attracting such a wide range of dental suppliers under one roof, there will be plenty that’s new. Whether you want to check you’re taking advantage of the latest advances in technology or want marketing or financial advice, all the leading players will be at your service.
An Exhibition First
This year, for the first time, there will be a specific day dedicated to Foundation Dentists which is being sponsored by MyDentist. One of the keynote lecture theatres will be committed to the needs of trainee dentists. Topics will cover how to bridge the gap from DFT to Associate, organising your CPD, risk management, effective treatment planning and complaint handling. As well as formal lectures, there will be a specific Foundation Dentist Hub where you can get one-on-one career advice. The opportunities don’t cease when the exhibition hall closes, for there will also be a Foundation Dentists’ Ball on Thursday 4th October on the Sunborn super-yacht, which is conveniently moored alongside Excel London. Why not organise a reunion with your former students, where you can share your FD experiences?
Education….the Passport To Your Future?
If education is your driver, then there will be no shortage of opportunities. Whether you prefer the longer length lectures by keynote speakers in the Dental Update Theatre, or would rather ‘dip in and dip out’ of shorter sessions in the Innovation Theatre. There’s a lot of focus this year on the NHS, with its landmark birthday, so maybe you want to learn more about what the government is doing to support dentistry. Sarah Hurley, CDO for England, will be talking each morning about the development and provision of NHS dental services. There’s also a specific CDO Zone should you want to discuss matters with Sara or one of her representatives. Whatever you need to know, Showcase is the place to find answers!
It’s Good to Talk
Dental Showcase provides an invaluable opportunity to network. All key associations will be in attendance, so you can discuss matters pertinent to your community whether you’re a dentist, hygienist, nurse or practice manager. If perio is your passion, then talk to the BSP, or if ortho enthuses you, then the BOC will be on hand to support, listen and advise.
Exhibitions are social events too and there’s plenty to do whilst you’re at Dental Showcase. A host of catering options will provide an opportunity for you to informally catch up during the day with colleagues or you could take the fun up a notch and attend the ‘Boat Bash’ being hosted by Dental Sky on the Sunborn on Friday 5th October, all profits of which go to the charity BrushUpUK. The evening will consist of two parts. The downstairs bar will have live music, canapés, a vintage photo booth, as well as charity events such as auctions and raffles. The second part of the evening will be in an exclusive bar at the top of the yacht, where there will be a casino night, complete with vodka luge!
To register, or for more information, visit dentalshowcase.com.
It’s the Tortoise and the Hare all over again…
Boota Singh Ubhi, Principal of Birmingham Periodontal & Implant Centre (BPI Dental), Specialist Periodontist and implant dentist, shares a long-term referral case that highlights some important lessons.
The patient was initially referred to us for full arch reconstruction with guided surgery in 2006. She presented with failing upper bridgework, which was partially implant-retained. There were multiple problems including failed apicoectomies, fractured roots, and the two anterior implants were failing as well (Figures 1-3).
The treatment options discussed with the patient were to either do nothing for as long as possible or to replace all existing restorations and implants. As the patient was keen to find a solution sooner rather than later, she chose the latter option.
A full clinical assessment was conducted with radiographs (Figures 4-5) and photographs. The only good tooth remaining was the upper right canine, but other than that the natural upper dentition had a hopeless prognosis and was unrestorable. A very large lesion was detected on the UL5, the UL3 was
apicoectomised and both the anterior implants were positioned very poorly, which had affected the smile aesthetics with a midline shift to the left. These implants had been placed about 13 years previously, so they featured very old designs.
Initial treatment and surgical planning
The treatment process was explained to the patient and informed consent obtained to proceed. The existing implants were removed (Figure 6), as were the few remaining natural teeth. As poor bone quantity had been identified in the assessment radiographs, bone augmentation was indicated if we were to place new implants with a good level of primary stability. The procedure was performed at this time around the implant site to preserve the sockets and in the upper left quadrant. This was left to heal for about six months, during which time the patient was provided with a removable temporary denture.
After this healing time period, the patient returned to the practice for a follow-up CT scan and wax-up, which was used for the guided planning process of the implant placement. The ideal implant positioning, angulation, length and width were determined using Simplant software.
On the day of surgery, mid-crestal and midline reliving incisions were made (Figure 7) and a full thickness mucosal flap was retracted back. A bone-supported guide was used (Figure 8) to place six Astra Tech dental implants (Figure 9), which at that time enabled the guided planning process with Simplant software. The flap was closed and sutured (Figure 10). Six multi-unit abutments were then placed (Figure 11) in preparation for the new screw-retained bridge. The post-operative X-ray demonstrated good positioning of the implants, which were all parallel to each other (Figure 12). The bridgework was fabricated (porcelain fused to Cresco gold framework), once again utilising compatible products. Due to the effective angulation of the implants, there was no need to angle the screw channels and we achieved a very passive fit for the bridgework. In this time, two implants were placed in the LL5 and LL6 areas, which were restored with two splintered crowns (Figure 13). The lower right bridgework was left alone despite the distal cantilever, as it was causing no problems at all.
Several try-ins of the upper bridge were conducted with the patient in order to achieve the right aesthetics. Once the patient was happy, she went on her way.
After about a year – during which time the patient saw her routine dental team for check-ups and general care – she returned to our practice for her annual clinical review, involving X-rays and full six-point pocket charts on every tooth and implant. The restorations still looked great (Figures 14-17) and the patient reported no issues.
|Images show the result at one year review.|
The patient continued to frequent her routine practice to ensure on-going maintenance of the dental implants and restorations and to help optimise her oral health. She also had access to our dental hygienist at BPI Dental on a yearly basis to support this maintenance programme. Around 10 years after we performed the surgical treatment, we were lucky enough to see the patient again and, as shown in the photos, the restorations still looked great (Figures 18-20). There had been very little soft tissue change and the aesthetics were fantastic, so the patient was still delighted with the final outcome.
|Images show the result at ten year review.|
This case highlights a few important aspects worthy of note. First, we don’t always need to rush treatment – this case required treatment over several months and the final outcome was highly appreciated by the patient. Secondly, dental implants placed in the right positions will facilitate long-term soft tissue and hard tissue stability for durable outcomes.
As in all dental implant cases, the presented case emphasised the importance of excellent maintenance by the patient – only by attending on-going review appointments and adhering to strict hygiene routines at home can patients enjoy long-lasting results. Finally, this case demonstrates the superior aesthetics of porcelain both in the short- and long-term – I don’t think it can really be bettered and therefore it would remain my gold standard restoration material wherever possible.
Boota graduated in 1992 and later gained an MSc in Periodontology from Liverpool University. He became a lecturer at the University and passed his Membership in Restorative Dentistry form the Royal College of Surgeons of England in 2000 to become a registered Specialist in Periodontology. Since then, Boota has lectured at universities and educational events in the field of periodontics, dental implantology and bone / soft tissue augmentation, running his own implant training programme for colleagues as well. He is also an active member of the British Society of Periodontology, the Association of Dental Implantology and the American Academy of Periodontology.
Having been taken to task myself by Counsel once over an issue of a conflict of interest during a Fitness to Practise hearing, I fully appreciate that expert witnesses and FtP panel members must be, or at least be seen to be, ‘whiter than white’. That is, of course, subject to the phrase not being in anyway offensive to any sectors of society as it certainly isn’t intended to be, or otherwise inappropriately bringing the profession into disrepute, in which case I mean ‘holier than thou’. Or do I? Truthfully I’m not sure what I can and can’t say these days.
The GDC also seem to grasp the impact that conflict of interests may have on the disciplinary processes, as they have a document titled ‘Managing Interests Policy for Council members and Associates’. In this document it says:
So it all sounds like, on paper at least, the GDC takes the issue of conflicts of interests very seriously indeed. And it is with reference to conflicts of interests and the Pate case that I am writing this blog.
There has already been plenty written on the GDC v Pate case elsewhere. On Dentistry online their 4 most popular links refer to the proverbial ‘FtP case of the year’.
At the time I started writing Mr Hill was winning with over 9,000 views. Coming up fast at the back with a late article on the subject was Mr Anis with a tidy 4000 views of his re-iteration of the points Mr Hill makes, but it feels with more insistent tone that negative Islamic comment equates to hate speech. Mr Rees and Mr Watson also give opinions on the subject and there are some excellent arguments made in all these pieces, including within the comments.
Much is made of the fact that the Met Police said that no crime had been committed by Mr Pate and that this means nothing in terms of FtP. Actually, I would have to concur. But the problem is that the Chief Constable of the Met did not simply say ‘no crime committed here, everyone move on’. What he appears to have said as I read it, is that what was said wasn’t that bad. The police letter, which is not mentioned in the determination, but I shall add it here for transparency, says:
Interesting. Controversial views, and at times unpleasant to the majority, but certainly not criminal, offensive or even religiously offensive says the Chief Constable of the Met. And, there are well-known individuals saying the same things. Not an entirely helpful letter for the GDC’s case, which presumably explains why it is not referred to the determination. The transcript does refer to the letter, but these are not publically available and only available to the parties directly involved in the proceedings. Well, correction; they are available to the public, at a cost of approximately £250 per hearing day as I found out recently from an FOI.
Anyway, I am side-tracking. Back to the conflicts issue. Further to the complaint, and the Met letter, the hearing progressed with an unrepresented Mr Pate, as non-clinical issues fell outside of his defence indemnifiers remit as it has been reported. Having read the transcript, the need for representation at these hearings is clear. Many of the arguments and points Mr Pate put forwards would have been better made, and no doubt have carried more weight if made by Counsel. ‘Stories of the Law’ by the Secret Barrister who explains how self-representing people frustrate the hell out of everyone else in any kind of legal or quasi-legal hearing. So the GDC got a great opportunity to make the point that registrants should tone it down, or better still, completely shut up on social media by securing a four-month suspension of Mr Pate.
Chair of the FtP panel, Mr Adair Richards was soon after noted to have listed the General Dental Council as a previous client when tweeting about his new training and consultancy company website earlier in the year:
Indeed, the GDC are right in their warnings that social media can be hazardous.
Unfortunately, the level of trust in our regulator appears to be so low that registrants are now at the point of scrutinising the background and motives of associated individuals. Here, it appears that we have an FtP panel member who has been paid by the GDC to provide training and consultancy to the GDC. A Freedom of Information request was submitted to request Mr Richards declaration of conflicts and other information about his previous business relationship with the GDC, of which nothing was apparently declared.
I was told that Mr Richards ‘made an error’ on his website, and as if by magic, one week later the website had been altered to remove the GDC from the previous list of clients. I’ll be honest, and say I am not sure that I buy this is an ‘error’. FtP panel members go through rigorous testing of their critical thinking skills. They are not unintelligent people. To make an error implies that Mr Richards either misunderstood that his role on the FtP panel was somehow an extension of his consultancy services, or perhaps that he was completely unaware that the website copywriter had listed the GDC as a client. The other possibility that crosses my mind is that it could have been a ‘deliberate error’, made with the intention to mislead potential future clients into thinking the company had trained or consulted with the GDC. Either way, it does not look good. The Managing Interests Policy document tells me that these are the possible interests, of which I pick at the very least a ‘perception of a conflict’:
As a result of this error/lie on the website, which seems to have been swept under a rug in Wimpole Street, I also perceive that Mr Richards could be in breach of the Nolan Principles listed in appendix 2:
I think it is great that Mr Hill came online to explain why the GDC took the Pate case so seriously, and highlighting why protecting public confidence in the profession is so important.
However, I can’t help thinking that the large number of dissenting registrants would be more respectful of the Pate hearing outcome were it not for the issues that I have exposed here and in my previous blogs.