I have been keeping an eye on the cases emerging from the Fitness to Practice and other committees of the General Dental Council [GDC] for some time, I am sure other GDPUK readers will be interested to know what goes on each month. So, the aim will be to write summary monthly, in what we hope is a short lived blog.

Monthly breakdown of case types and outcomes

The month of March saw 59 hearings scheduled after one was moved back to start in April.  There was 1 registration appeal which was granted.  Of the remaining cases, 18 were new Practice Committee hearings, 6 were Practice Committee review hearings and 2 were health cases.  Interim Orders held 14 new hearings and 18 review hearings.  Broken down by registrant type, there were 48 dentists, 4 dental nurses, 4 dental technicians, 2 hygienists and 1 clinical dental technician involved in hearings.

Interim Orders handed out 8 new suspensions and 8 continuation of suspensions, placed 1 registrant on conditions and kept 7 on conditions.  One suspension was revoked, 1 suspension was downgraded to conditions and 5 cases had no order.  Of the new suspensions 6 of the 8 registrants were not represented and not present.

The Health Committee suspended 1 registrant and placed another on conditions. The Practice Committee erased 1 registrant, issued 2 suspensions, 2 extensions of suspension, and placed 2 registrants on conditions whilst 2 had their conditions extended.  Four suspension orders were revoked, 3 reprimands were given, 3 cases were adjourned, 3 registrants were found not impaired, 1 case was referred back to the Investigating Committee, and in 1 case no misconduct was found. 

March’s cases of interest

The erased registrant was neither present nor represented, but the case mainly related to failing to take appropriate radiographs, failures in treatment planning and record-keeping, lacking indemnity cover whilst treating patients on 4 days, and a failure to cooperate with the GDC.

In the ‘No Misconduct’ case the registrant essentially faced charges which related to not providing an estimate of costs for root canal treatment (although he did not actually invoice the patient for any of the treatment provided), not informing the patient of the risks of the proposed treatment and therefore failing to obtain informed consent. In fact, the registrant had only provided emergency treatment to try to relieve pain and infection.  This was ultimately not successful and the tooth was removed by another dentist. The patient/witness actually complained to the GDC about something else, but this was not worthy of any charges so how this case actually came about is not clear from the determination.  Despite having a confused recollection at times, the patient was still described to be a credible witness. Another matter which is not clear in the determination is why there were 3 experts involved - 1 for each party and a joint expert statement.   The registrant admitted all the charges, but the panel found some aspects not proved and despite both the GDC and defence counsel accepting misconduct and impairment, the panel found neither on the basis that the treatment was emergency in nature rather than a definitive RCT procedure, and the failings not so serious as to be considered deplorable.  A happy outcome here with the lesson of not assuming that because you have not charged a patient they won’t complain about you.   

The case referred back to the Investigating Committee involved fissure sealants on a single patient, which the GDC-appointed expert Professor Deery (who is a paediatric dentistry consultant and Dean of Sheffield School of Clinical Dentistry) had concluded were appropriate after he had examined the patient, and that wear on the patient’s teeth was due to erosion rather than damage caused by the registrant.  It was submitted that this evidence would change the view of the IC and that no realistic prospect of a finding of misconduct existed, begging the question did one exist in the first place?  How the case came about, and on what the basis of the patient complained is not explicit in the determination but it is implied that the registrant may have perhaps been accused of creating damage in which to place fissure sealants or otherwise creating unneeded work for themselves.  This case highlights the inherent issues with the lack of a clinical examination until a late stage, (if at all) in the FtP process and how assessors and experts creating charges purely on clinical records is a flawed concept.  This case will have involved a significant waste of registrants’ money in reaching a Practice Committee that could have perhaps have been avoided with an earlier examination of the patient. Hopefully with the recruitment of dentally-qualified caseworkers cases like this can be avoided in future.

Mr N, who was neither present nor represented, was suspended following his hearing which included 73 individual heads of charge, many of which had several sub-headings.  The GDC-instructed barrister may have missed Jonathan Green’s presentation at the Dental Protection Study Day last October where he stated that no over-drafting of allegations would take place following the embarrassment of the Kirschner case.  In the determination the GDC-appointed expert, Professor Morganstein seems to advise that linings ought to be placed under amalgam restorations.  With no representation there is no means of contesting such a view even though many GDPs would now not line amalgams, nor is there any conclusive evidence that they need to be.  Professor Morganstein is apparently the Dean of the dental school at the University of Buckingham (I know what you are thinking…. and I’ve not heard of it either).  I feel this case nicely highlights the problem with the GDC using experts who are focused on academia or in specialist practice opining on GDPs, and is directly contributing to the stealthy moving of standards in an upwards direction.

Finally, the long-running Carew case which I have been watching with interest due to the charge of:

·         you failed to adequately record the clinical reason why a try-in was required……

has left me somewhat disappointed as this charge was withdrawn on day 1 of the hearing. It looks like we will never get to find out why this element of record-keeping was considered to have been essential.  

Our site is free for members of the dental profession to join. Established since 1997, we are proud to have nearly close to 10,000 members of our online community.

Revenue for the site is generated by companies from the dental industry advertising on the site.

Advertising on the site is done in the form of banner ads. These work well on the platform because they are reaching an audience who are interested in what services or products are available and you are offering something the audience is interested in.

We also offer advertising on our daily digest emails, which get sent 3 times a day and on average get opened over 100,000 times a month. These are opened on a frequent basis because they the content changes as the forum posts change.

As part of this advertising experience, we feel we can offer you more than traditional advertising mediums. GDPUK offers a value added experience.

• Exposure on the site or daily digest for a full month or as long as you want. Pricing is on a per month basis. This generates a large number of impressions of your message.

• Opportunity to post PR or blogs onto the site to accompany your campaign, these are then shared with our thousands of followers on social media. So as well as reaching our community audience, you are reaching another audience through social media.

• By posting content and information to our blog pages, you can be seen as an opinion leader in your sector.

• Our ad serving software can display more than one ad at a time, instead of having all your impressions on one message, you can split the exposure between as many messages as you want. This works well for a dental business that has a number of product or service offerings eg. a business that does dental repairs and sells equipment, can advertise both services at once. This is a fabulous way to test what works and experiment with which ads gain the best response.

• Click throughs can be to a dedicated landing page on our website, where you can collect data or provide further information to the audience.

• Advert can appear on our front page and our news / blog pages, which get viewed thousands of times in a month.

• Option to run a forum review of your product or service for a small extra fee.

• Option to have a sponsored post on the forum for a small extra fee.

So as you can see, we offer banner ads but we also offer a number of extras that we include in the package that makes it a great marketing opportunity. If you would like further information and are interested in reaching your target audience, please get in touch today. Pricing starts from £299 + vat.

Email - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Tel - 07786571547

We will be attending the Dentistry Show, please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if you would like to meet up.

This year Patient Plan Direct (PPD) is exhibiting for the first time at the Dentistry Show. Now working with over 300 practices across the UK, PPD business development manager  – Janice Charlton, outlines 3 reasons why you should visit stand B75 and the PPD team if you’re attending the Show at the NEC this Friday 22^nd or Saturday 23^rd April.

Janice explains: “Whether your practice already offers a dental plan via another plan provider, or you’re considering how you can create less reliance on the NHS and take steps to plan ahead of changes in the future, or you simply want to explore launching a dental plan to offer patients greater choice and nurture patient loyalty, PPD can help.

“Just take a look at how other practices have benefited from taking advantage of our efficient, low cost approach to helping your practice run, develop and grow a practice-branded dental plan thanks to our admin fee of just £1 per patient per month.”

Reason 1: Consider transferring from another plan provider: Read how High Street Dental significantly cut their plan administration fees and saved thousands in costs, spending savings to further develop their practice CLICK HERE

Reason 2: Consider creating less reliance on the NHS: Read how and why Causeway Dental Practice have successful created less reliance on the NHS and grown private revenue streams in working with PPD CLICK HERE

Reason 3: Consider launching a plan for the first time: Read why Holly Dental felt it was essential to introduce a private dental plan and why they opted to work with PPD  CLICK HERE

If you’re not going to the show, but you would like to discover how PPD can help your practice please contact us to arrange an exploratory meeting at your practice:

Call: 08448486888

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

Web: www.patientplandirect.co.uk