Search the Registers

The Case Examiners considered allegations that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. Allegations related to the Registrant failing to provide an adequate standard of care to Patient MG, failing to maintain an adequate standard of record keeping in respect of MG’s appointments from 6 October 2020 and 17 December 2021, failing to obtain informed consent for the treatment provided to Patient MG on from 6 October 2020 to 17 December 2021. and failing to treat Patient MG with kindness and compassion on 8 December 2020 by speaking to the patient in a raised tone of voice. The Case Examiners were satisfied that the following General Dental Council ‘Standards for the Dental Team’ (September 2013) could be engaged in this case at: Standard 1.2 ‘You must treat every patient with dignity and respect at all times.’ Associated guidance 1.2.1: ‘You should be aware of how your tone of voice and body language might be perceived.’ Associated guidance 2.3.5: ‘You should make sure that patients have enough information and enough time to ask questions and make a decision.’ Standard 3.1: ‘You must obtain valid consent before starting treatment, explaining all the relevant options and the possible costs.’ Standard 4.1: ‘You must make and keep contemporaneous, complete and accurate patient records.’ Having determined that there is a real prospect of the facts alleged being proved, and of the statutory ground of misconduct being established, but no real prospect of a Practice Committee finding the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired, the Case Examiners are satisfied that this case ought not to be considered by a Practice Committee. However, the Case Examiners consider that although there is no real prospect of a finding of current impairment being made, there is evidence to suggest that the Registrant’s overall conduct has fallen below the standard expected to a degree warranting a formal response from the General Dental Council. To dispose of this case without further action would, in the Case Examiners’ view, fail to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and conduct, nor would it help to maintain confidence in the dental profession. The Case Examiners have consequently noted that their Indicative Outcomes Guidance (February 2018) states at paragraphs: ‘75. The GDC’s Standards for the Dental Team provides that registrants must obtain valid consent before starting treatment, explaining all the relevant options and the possible costs. Registrants must also make sure that patients (or their representatives) understand the decisions they are being asked to make, and that the patient’s consent remains valid at each stage of investigation or treatment. Where more than one registrant is involved in a patient’s care, it is for each individual registrant to make sure that the patient has been provided with a treatment plan and has given informed consent. 76. The onus is always on a registrant to ensure that the patient is informed fully of the relevant risks and benefits of treatment. Discussions with the patient should be documented and should include the various options available. 81. …, the Case Examiners do not consider that there is a real prospect of current impairment being established, the Case Examiners may wish to consider whether the imposition of a warning. 82. Dental professionals are required to make and keep accurate dental records of care provided to patients, whether NHS or private. The GDC imposes a professional obligation to create records for dental treatment that is provided to patients, including discussions had with patients regarding treatment, decisions made and the findings of tests and investigations (including negative findings).’

The Case Examiners accordingly consider that a warning, published for 6 months, would be a proportionate response to the Registrant allegedly breaching the General Dental Council’s Standards and indicate to her that this conduct should not be repeated. This has taken into account that the incident involving the one patient appears to have been an isolated and unrepeated matter and the risk of repetition of the conduct detailed in the relevant allegations is considered to be low. The Registrant is reminded that this warning will form part of her fitness to practise history, and she may be required to disclose it even after the period for publication has expired. The Case Examiners formally warn the Registrant that: • Failure to maintain an adequate standard of record keeping 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. • Failure to obtain informed consent undermines patient choice and the benefits of the treatment provided. The Registrant must ensure treatment options, risks and benefits are fully communicated to patients and that they are given the time to consider the proposed treatment. Further, the Registrant must ensure that the consent process is fully documented and should be understood by the patient or their carer, including when treatment plans change during the course of care. • Failure to treat patients with kindness and compassion undermines the trust which should exist between clinician and patient and can compromise treatment. The Registrant is reminded to always be aware of how one’s tone of voice may negatively impact on patients.