GDC Steadfast with Sanctions Despite Unravelling FTP Cases
- Details
- Published: Wednesday, 22 January 2025 09:59
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 1654
Will the real GDC please stand up.
On the one hand we have talk of the need for trust and transparency as well as outgoing chair, Lord Harris in January 2025 saying that: “Improving FtP processes wherever we can remains a firm priority for the GDC. We know that investigations take a long time and can cause stress and anxiety. Changes made in recent years help, and we have firm plans in place to do more.”
On the other there is a continuing pattern of the GDC instructing its legal advisers to push for severe sanctions, even in those FtP cases where major heads of charge have been dropped, and in one case late in 2024 after their expert witness had significantly revised their opinion, to the advantage of the registrant.
A recent case shows that the GDC continue to fight for findings of misconduct and severe sanctions, even when serious heads of charge fall away, or are rebutted. There were three charges, two of which were divided into two parts. By the time the case arrived at the hearing the second parts of both charges had already been withdrawn by the GDC. The case related to professional boundaries in the case of a relationship with a patient of the practice where the registrant worked. Importantly one of the dropped charges was an allegation that the registrant’s conduct had been sexually motivated. The other dropped charge was an allegation of treatment being provided on a specific day. However the Committee was satisfied, having considered the material provided to it in advance of the hearing, that there was no evidence to support the claim that any treatment was provided to the patient by the registrant on that day. This left a charge relating to two items of treatment on another day.
By the time of the treatment concerned, the patient had been under the care of another dentist at the practice for some time and this predated the commencement of their relationship with the accused dentist. At the patients’ instigation the registrant met them and a relationship followed later. It was during that relationship that the patient had an emergency issue the nature of which only the accused dentist was able to deal with. The provision of this emergency care formed part of one of the remaining charges.
It was acknowledged that there was no evidence of predatory behaviour on the registrant’s part, and that the relationship was a consensual one. Despite this the GDC asserted that they had abused their position of power as the patients “treating or previously treating clinician.” The retrospective nature of this alleged impairment by including previous treatment would suggest that any relationship with a former patient, however long ago one had stopped providing their treatment, can attract the attention of the GDC.
Counsel for the GDC continued to assert that this was a case of serious misconduct and that suspension would be a suitable sanction. They said that a finding of current impairment was required for the protection of the public and was in the wider public interest, and that that the registrant’s remediation to date had been insufficient.
They added that a finding of impairment would be required, even if it was considered that such a finding was not necessary to protect the public. This was to, “protect the reputation of the dental profession and to maintain and uphold proper professional standards.”
Counsel for the GDC went on to ask for a suspension order for a period of 12 months.
As part of the Committee’s deliberations, it noted that the Standard does not explicitly prohibit personal relationships with past or present patients. The guidance is that you must maintain appropriate professional boundaries.
The Committee considered that it would not have been in the patients’ best interests for the registrant to have refused the emergency treatment. A further elective item of treatment provided at the same time, at the patient’s request, was inappropriate. However, it did not consider that this single, ill-judged incident fell far below the standards such that fellow dental professionals and members of the public would find deplorable. The Committee found that this did not constitute misconduct. The Committee took into account that the registrant later took active steps to avoid being in the same situation again.
The Committee considered the chronology of the relationship as well as the absence of any evidence to suggest that the registrant took advantage of their position as a dental professional to pursue that relationship. The Committee was not satisfied that their conduct represented a significant departure from professional standards and concluded that the facts admitted and found proved did not amount to misconduct.
In his look forward to the 2025 GDC programme Lord Harris also said “We will be reviewing our processes where there are sexual misconduct allegations and identifying opportunities for reducing the impact on participants in such cases.
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report
My comments