Case Studies for principle 1
The patient who complained to us was elderly and living in a residential care home.
He need new full dentures. He had seen the regular dentist at the care home, Mr
Brown, who took impressions and charger the patient £800 up front. He arranged to
fit the dentures on 1 November but, on the day, phoned to cancel the appointment
on the day, citing personal reasons. He rescheduled for 10 November.
Mr Brown did not arrive for the appointment on 10 November. The patient tried to
contact Mr Brown on the two phone numbers that he had been given but neither number
was in use.
On 30 November, the patient received a letter from The Insolvency Service stating
that Mr Brown was the subject of a Bankruptcy Order and that the patient was a creditor.
The patient made a complaint to the GDC, in which he complained that the dentist
had taken payment for work he had not intended to carry out, and that he had not
communicated with the patient.
The Fitness to Practise Caseworker considered the Mr Brown may have breached aspects
of Standards
for the Dental Team including:
- 1.3 You must be honest and act with integrity
- 1.3.1 You must justify the trust that patients, the public and your colleagues place
in you by always acting honestly and fairly in your dealings with them. This applies
to any business or education activities in which you are involved as well as to
your professional dealings.
- 1.7.1 You must always put your patients’ interests before any financial, personal
or other gain.
The case was referred to the Investigating Committee. The caseworker wrote to the
dentist about the case on several occasions and received no response.
The Investigating Committee referred the case on to the Professional Conduct Committee,
and expressed disappointment that the dentist had not engaged with the GDC about
the matter.
The Professional Conduct Committee determined that Mr Brown's actions amounted to
misconduct. They stated that he had effectively exploited a vulnerable patient,
and caused considerable financial loss to that patient. During the course of the
case, Mr Brown had said that he felt the case against him was "spurious". The Committee
felt that this showed a lack of insight.
The Committee determined that Mr Brown's fitness to practise was impaired, and to
erase him from the register.