Case Studies for principle 7
Mr Parekh is a dentist working in private practice in London. His parents live
abroad but regularly come to visit.
Towards the end of the one of these trips, his mother, a diabetic, ran out of medication.
Mr Parekh, having basic knowledge of his mother’s medical history and of the drugs
she took, wrote a private prescription ensuring she had enough medication to last
until the end of her visit.
The pharmacist dispensed the medication, but was concerned that Mr Parekh was prescribing
medication for a non-dental condition and issuing a prescription for his mother.
She decided to raise these concerns with the GDC.
The fitness to practise caseworker considered that Mr Parekh may have breached a
number of standards and guidance in Standards for the Dental Team including (but
not limited to):
- 7.2 You must work within your knowledge, skills, 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.
The caseworker also thought that Mr Parekh had breached the guidance on prescribing
medicines.
The Investigating Committee having looked into the details of this case, recognised
it was inappropriate for Mr Parekh to write a prescription for diabetes medication
for his mother. However, in his defence Mr Parekh stated that whilst he was not
a medical doctor, he did have an understanding of his mother’s medical condition
and understood what the medication he prescribed was for.
Mr Parekh also stated that he was putting his patient's interests first by providing
his mother with medication that she needed to manage her medical condition, as otherwise
she may have become seriously ill. Mr Parekh acknowledged that it may have not been
appropriate to issue a prescription, but it was an emergency, the prescription was
only for a weeks supply, by which point his parents would have arrived back home,
and his mother would have had the opportunity to visit her own doctor.
The Investigating Committee thought that Mr Parekh’s conduct was inappropriate as
he prescribed medication for diabetes, a condition which he did not fully understand
and he had prescribed medication for his mother. However, the committee also understood
that the medication was prescribed in an urgent situation and Mr Parekh’s mother
understood that she should visit her doctor for a review once she arrived back home.
Mr Parekh was issued with a warning letter.