GDC Watch March 2016

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  One suspension was revoked, 1 suspension was downgraded to conditions and 5 cases had no order.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.