Poor Social Skills Risk Disciplinary Action
- Details
- Published: Thursday, 11 April 2024 19:49
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 1690
Reading the charge lists on the GDC hearings website, many dental care professionals may be forgiven for having a “there but for the grace.” moment. Previous items considered worthy of including on charge sheets have included, testing the 3 in 1 syringe on the patient’s bib, and having hair over one’s face.
Details of a recent Fitness to Practise hearing may produce a shudder amongst readers and possibly laughter from friends and acquaintances who happen to work in other fields, under other regulators. It was alleged that the registrant had failed to provide an “adequate standard of care” and then gave the following examples, taken from a single patient encounter that happened over four years ago:
- They did not introduce themselves to the patient in advance of beginning the appointment.
- As evidence that they were not “sufficiently focussed” on the patient’s care:
- Repeatedly asking the patient what their name and date of birth was.
- They had dropped papers, more than once.
- They asked the dental nurse for papers that it transpired that they were holding.
- Further, they are accused of not always speaking to the patient in a manner that they could understand. Examples were given: In response to asking how sedation would feel, the registrant had said it was “like being in the pub for hours, or words to that effect” and “if the building was on fire you wouldn’t care, or words to that effect”
All of the above are described as unprofessional conduct. There is one further charge relating to a conversation where it is alleged that the registrant said they had a health condition that they did not. No context is provided as to who the conversation was with, whether it related to work, or the implications of any possible deception. This charge is described as, misleading, lacking in integrity and dishonest.
When found, a charge of dishonesty is often considered irredeemable, and as a result frequently results in erasure.
While the specific circumstances might make sense of this case, it remains concerning. Dental teams often strive to put patients at ease by trying to communicate in a way that they will understand. This may not always succeed, but discouraging teams trying to use situations or analogies that patients may be familiar with, will lead to greater problems gaining informed consent.
Similarly, flight deck style checks, for example on tooth extractions, have long been advocated to avoid mistakes. If the GDC is going to penalise double checking important information such as medications, and the site of pain, they will certainly keep their FTP hearings busy. With a busy list, seeing new patients, and in multi surgery practices, there are times when the person sitting in the chair may not be the one that you expected when you checked your diary on the screen.
This hearing has been taking place over the period that the GDC’s Executive Director, Strategy Stefan Czerniawski, arguably the nearest thing that the GDC has to a CEO, published his blog on “Transparency, trust and improving the fitness to practise process.”
Good news: Since this article was written, the determination in this case found the registrant had no impairment to his fitness to practise - the determination can be found here
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report