Search the Registers

The Case Examiners considered allegations that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. The allegations related to the Registrant, between 07 November 2022 and 23 January 2023 not providing an adequate standard of care to 5 patients, failing to obtain informed consent, failing to maintain an adequate standard of record keeping and putting patient safety at risk. The Case Examiners determined to issue a warning published for 12 months in this case on the basis that they found a real prospect of most of the factual allegations being found proved, a real prospect of a Practice Committee finding these facts would establish the statutory grounds of misconduct but no real prospect of a Practice Committee finding the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired, given the remediation and insight shown by the Registrant. However, the Case Examiners considered there was evidence to suggest that the Registrant’s overall conduct had fallen below the standards expected to a degree warranting a formal response from the General Dental Council (GDC). The Case Examiners have taken into account their Case Examiner Guidance Manual (November 2016) regarding the criteria to be considered when minded to issue a warning and also their Indicative Outcomes Guidance (26 February 2018) in relation to examples of types of cases for which it may be appropriate to issue a warning, including in relation to consent and one-off serious clinical mistakes. Based on the guidance, the Case Examiners consider that a warning in this case is necessary to declare and uphold proper professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession. Further, the Case Examiners consider that publication of the warning for a period of 12 months is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances, and will ensure that a message is sent to the Registrant and to the wider profession regarding the importance of maintaining appropriate standards. The Registrant is reminded that this warning will form part of her fitness to practise history, even after it is no longer published, and may need to be disclosed as required.

The Case Examiners warn the Registrant that: • failure to undertake a systematic and appropriate assessment of a patient’s dental condition, which can include intra-oral and extra-oral examinations and radiographs, may result in deficient treatment planning and inadequate care. The Registrant must ensure that sufficient diagnostic assessments are carried out as part of both general dental treatment and to assist with treatment planning. • failure to maintain accurate and detailed records can impact upon ongoing patient care. Clinical records must be sufficiently detailed so as to allow future audit or review, to understand any and all clinical considerations, justifications and potential diagnostic conclusions reached as well as the actions carried out by the registrant and the information discussed with the patient. The Registrant must ensure that he consistently and accurately records all information in line with current standards. • failure to obtain and record informed consent can have serious effects on the individual patient, and on the wider trust and public confidence in the profession. The Registrant must ensure that she obtains full, informed consent prior to carrying out any procedures, and this should be fully documented. She must ensure that she communicates all relevant risks and benefits of treatments to patients and confirm that they fully understand them before embarking on treatment. • failure to justify, grade and report on radiographs departs from accepted standards (including the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000) and can compromise patient care. The Registrant must ensure that she follows the relevant guidelines and legislation to ensure good radiographic practice. • she must ensure that she takes radiographs in line with the relevant guidelines. • where caries is diagnosed that it is treated appropriately and the treatment options, risks and benefits (including in relation to no treatment) are discussed with the patient. • that when providing emergency care, she must take care to take a full history, carry out all appropriate tests and investigations to give an accurate diagnosis which should be clearly communicated to the patient with the full long-term treatment options. • that antibiotics are clinically justified and prescribed in line with relevant guidelines. • patient safety incidents are dealt with appropriately including follow-up care when required.

The Case Examiners considered allegations that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. The allegations related to the Registrant, between 07 November 2022 and 23 January 2023 not providing an adequate standard of care to 5 patients, failing to obtain informed consent, failing to maintain an adequate standard of record keeping and putting patient safety at risk. The Case Examiners determined to issue a warning published for 12 months in this case on the basis that they found a real prospect of most of the factual allegations being found proved, a real prospect of a Practice Committee finding these facts would establish the statutory grounds of misconduct but no real prospect of a Practice Committee finding the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired, given the remediation and insight shown by the Registrant. However, the Case Examiners considered there was evidence to suggest that the Registrant’s overall conduct had fallen below the standards expected to a degree warranting a formal response from the General Dental Council (GDC). The Case Examiners have taken into account their Case Examiner Guidance Manual (November 2016) regarding the criteria to be considered when minded to issue a warning and also their Indicative Outcomes Guidance (26 February 2018) in relation to examples of types of cases for which it may be appropriate to issue a warning, including in relation to consent and one-off serious clinical mistakes. Based on the guidance, the Case Examiners consider that a warning in this case is necessary to declare and uphold proper professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession. Further, the Case Examiners consider that publication of the warning for a period of 12 months is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances, and will ensure that a message is sent to the Registrant and to the wider profession regarding the importance of maintaining appropriate standards. The Registrant is reminded that this warning will form part of her fitness to practise history, even after it is no longer published, and may need to be disclosed as required.

The Case Examiners warn the Registrant that: • failure to undertake a systematic and appropriate assessment of a patient’s dental condition, which can include intra-oral and extra-oral examinations and radiographs, may result in deficient treatment planning and inadequate care. The Registrant must ensure that sufficient diagnostic assessments are carried out as part of both general dental treatment and to assist with treatment planning. • failure to maintain accurate and detailed records can impact upon ongoing patient care. Clinical records must be sufficiently detailed so as to allow future audit or review, to understand any and all clinical considerations, justifications and potential diagnostic conclusions reached as well as the actions carried out by the registrant and the information discussed with the patient. The Registrant must ensure that he consistently and accurately records all information in line with current standards. • failure to obtain and record informed consent can have serious effects on the individual patient, and on the wider trust and public confidence in the profession. The Registrant must ensure that she obtains full, informed consent prior to carrying out any procedures, and this should be fully documented. She must ensure that she communicates all relevant risks and benefits of treatments to patients and confirm that they fully understand them before embarking on treatment. • failure to justify, grade and report on radiographs departs from accepted standards (including the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000) and can compromise patient care. The Registrant must ensure that she follows the relevant guidelines and legislation to ensure good radiographic practice. • she must ensure that she takes radiographs in line with the relevant guidelines. • where caries is diagnosed that it is treated appropriately and the treatment options, risks and benefits (including in relation to no treatment) are discussed with the patient. • that when providing emergency care, she must take care to take a full history, carry out all appropriate tests and investigations to give an accurate diagnosis which should be clearly communicated to the patient with the full long-term treatment options. • that antibiotics are clinically justified and prescribed in line with relevant guidelines. • patient safety incidents are dealt with appropriately including follow-up care when required.