Mr Taylor is a dentist. Two of his patients paid into a monthly dental payment
scheme which entitled them to a specific number of check-ups every year.
On a number of occasions, these regular appointments were cancelled by Mr Taylor.
The patients both wrote letters of complaint to Mr Taylor and asked for a refund
of their monthly payments but their letters were ignored.
The patients then contacted the company which ran the dental payment scheme and
asked for assistance in resolving their complaints. The representative from the
payment scheme sent four letters to Mr Taylor, all of which were ignored and also
left a number of voicemail messages for him, but the telephone calls were not returned.
When the company reported this to the patients, they decided to complain to the
GDC.
The fitness to practise caseworker considered Mr Taylor may have breached a number
of the standards and guidance in Standards for the Dental Team including (but not
limited to):
- 5.1 You must make sure there is an effective complaints procedure readily available
for patients to use, and follow that procedure at all times
- 5.1.1 It is part of your responsibility as a dental professional to deal with complaints
properly and professionally. You must:
- ensure that there is an effective written complaints procedure where you work;
- follow the complaints procedure at all times;
- respond to complaints within the time limits set out in the procedure; and
- provide a constructive response to the complaint.
- 5.3 You must give patients who complain a prompt and constructive response
- 5.3.3 You should aim to resolve complaints as efficiently, effectively and politely
as possible.
-
5.3.4 You must respond to complaints within the time limits set out in your complaints
procedure.
The case was referred to the Investigating Committee. The Investigating Committee
was concerned by Mr Taylor’s attitude towards his patients and his repeated failure
to engage with appropriate agencies in the interests of patients and decided to
refer him to the Professional Conduct Committee.
The Professional Conduct Committee considered the case and thought that Mr Taylor’s
behaviour was a clear breach of a fundamental standard expected of a dental professional.
It thought his conduct fell far below what was expected of a registrant and had
the potential to bring the profession into disrepute.
The committee felt that Mr Taylor’s behaviour could be remediated, but was concerned
that he had shown no insight into his failings or taken any steps to address them.
The committee was also concerned by Mr Taylor’s poor attitude, his failure to engage
with the patients and payment scheme provider and also his failure to engage with
his regulatory body. The committee decided to issue Mr Taylor with a reprimand.