GDC Fails with Social Skills Accusations
- Details
- Published: Wednesday, 24 April 2024 10:26
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 887
A recent hearing demonstrated that the GDC‘s combative approach to Fitness to Practice (FTP) cases is very much alive and well.
GDPUK recently reported [click here] on a case with what appeared to be trivial charges where the GDC was seeking a finding of dishonesty, which if found, often results in erasure. In brief, the charges came under two headings. The first related to a single episode where the dentist was alleged to have been inattentive or possibly lacking in social skills, though no harm came to the patient, nor were any risks or poor clinical decisions or outcomes, referred to. The second also related to a single episode, where the circumstances were not given, although it did not involve patient care. Here when shown a video of themselves sleeping, the dentist was alleged to have said that they had narcolepsy and took medication for this, when they did not. This was where the GDC sought the dishonesty finding.
The case is now concluded with the determination: “Facts found proved did not amount to misconduct. Case Concluded.” There is however a lot concealed behind those eight words.
By the time the hearing took place the two episodes that it rested on had occurred over four years previously. At the very beginning of the hearing counsel for the registrant asserted that the there was insufficient evidence for the Committee to find proven the allegations of being misleading, and dishonesty. She said that the quality of the evidence against the registrant was: “of a tenuous character, for example, because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence.” She went on to claim that there was no direct evidence of dishonesty and that the GDC’s case was being presented in a way to invite the Committee to draw inferences as to the registrants state of mind, knowledge, and belief, at that time.
Counsel then drew attention to other flaws in the GDC’s case. The sole witness to the conversation had said in their evidence that they did not know what narcolepsy was. In an informal conversation between them and the registrant that lasted an hour, there must have been a detailed discussion, and the two sentences selected by the GDC could not properly summarise it. Indeed in her statement Witness 1 had not specifically stated narcolepsy. In addition after the meeting Witness 1 had concluded that the registrant was fit to practice.
To quote the determination on this crucial point, counsel: “submitted that the chronology of Witness 1’s written statement was inaccurate. She submitted that Witness 1 had no recollection of events and had been triggered once she had re-read her witness statement.” She further submitted, “the word verbatim came from the GDC and not Witness 1, and this undermines her credibility as to whether the words were in fact said in that meeting.” She submitted that Witness 1 “adopted this for the purposes of her written statement and therefore what else has she adopted for the purposes of her evidence to this Committee.”
The GDC’s counsel did not accept this and managed to convince the committee to continue to consider the issue of dishonesty.
The registrant admitted to the ‘social skills’ accusations where they had made clumsy analogies in an attempt to describe the feeling of being sedated, and had both dropped papers and asked the patient their name, more than once. However on the more serious charges of being misleading and dishonest the committee did not find the allegations proved. The registrant said that the only time the word narcolepsy had been used had been when he had assured Witness 1 that he did not have it.
Witness 1 repeatedly said that their memory of the meeting was not good. They also said that during the meeting and up until the hearing they had not known the meaning of the words narcolepsy or verbatim, a word that appeared in the formal witness statement. Witness 1 agreed that they had adopted the word from others during the production of their statement.
Further issues were that Witness 1’s statement was described as “lacking in detail” and the committee had seen no original notes from the meeting. They had also confused the chronology of events on the day in question. Before writing the “witness statement” they had spoken to several colleagues including a conversation during a one hour drive with one of them. Their evidence was described by the committee as “inconsistent”. None of the colleagues had provided evidence to the committee, which was satisfied that the witness statement had been “contaminated by conversations she had with other individuals.”
Counsel for the GDC then pushed for a determination of misconduct and referred to the document provided by familiar GDC expert witness Professor Brook.
The committee‘s conclusion was that the registrant had not fallen far short of the Standards and that their conduct was not serious or deplorable.
They said that the risk to the reputation of the profession was minimal, and noted that there had been no concerns in almost five years of unrestricted practice, since. They were satisfied that there was no risk to patient safety. In conclusion, the Committee determined overall, that those heads of charge found proved, did not amount to misconduct.
As standard in such reports on GDC hearings it concludes with the words: “That concludes the hearing.” After nearly five years of an adversarial process, and the threat of erasure, it is unlikely that this concludes events for the registrant
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report