Case Studies for principle 7
Mr Wilson is a clinical dental technician. A patient, Ms Singh visited Mr Wilson’s
practice as she wanted a new full upper denture and partial lower denture.
Mr Wilson made a full upper denture and partial lower denture but Ms Singh was not
happy with the fit of either denture and she returned to see Mr Wilson on a number
of occasions to have the dentures readjusted. One of the anterior teeth also came
loose from the upper denture during that period.
Mr Wilson re-bonded the tooth, but it subsequently fell off. Ms Singh wrote to Mr
Wilson requesting a refund but he did not respond.
She contacted the Dental Complaints Service and was advised to write to Mr Wilson
again stating that she wanted a refund. Mr Wilson replied to say he had lost her
previous letter and that he only offered replacements, not refunds. Ms Singh remained
dissatisfied and reported Mr Wilson to the GDC.
The fitness to practise caseworker considered that Mr Wilson may have breached a
number of the standards and guidance in Standards for the Dental Team including
(but not limited to):
- 6.3.3 You should refer patients on if the treatment required is outside of your
scope of practice or competence. You should be clear about the procedure for doing
this.
- 7.2 You must work within your knowledge, skills and professional competence and
abilities.
- 7.2.1 You must only carry out a task or type of treatment if you are appropriately
trained, competent, confident and indemnified. Training can take many different
forms. You must be sure that you have undertaken training which is appropriate for
you and equips you with the appropriate knowledge and skills to perform a task safely.
- 5.1 You must make sure that there is an effective complaints procedure readily available
for patients to use, and follow that procedure at all times.
- 5.3 You must give patients who complain a prompt and constructive response.
The Investigating Committee decided to refer Mr Wilson to the Professional Conduct
Committee. It thought that acting outside of his scope of practice and not working
under the prescription of a dentist was a serious matter as was failing to provide
a good standard of care and not responding appropriately to complaints.
When the Professional Conduct Committee considered the case, Mr Wilson admitted
that he had worked outside of scope of practice by providing a partial denture to
a dentate patient without the prescription of a dentist. The committee thought that
Mr Wilson’s deliberate decision to work outside of his scope of practice represented
a serious departure from the standards expected of a clinical dental technician.
The committee stated that the GDC’s Scope of Practice document exists to protect
the public and to ensure that dental professionals work within their level of skill
and competence and that working outside of his scope of practice was a breach of
a fundamental tenet of the profession. It also considered that Mr Wilson’s handling
of Ms Singh’s complaint was unsatisfactory. The committee decided to issue Mr Wilson
with a reprimand.