A dentist has been removed from the register after it was proved that he hit the head of a child patient and failed to treat them with ‘compassion and kindness’.
A Professional Conduct Committee hearing found a number of charges proved, relating to a broad area of dentistry including, inadequate care, clinical failings, failings to treat patients with kindness and compassion, failure to cooperate with his regulator and dishonestly treating a patient when he was suspended from the NHS dental performers list.
The dentist was found to have hit a child patient – known as Patient D – on the head on more than one occasion, stating: ‘Move head.’ In a witness statement, the patient’s mother said: ‘He used the palm of his hand to smack the side of Patient D’s head. It was quite a hard and aggressive hit, happening two or three times each appointment, before I intervened. It was noticeable that [the dentist] was becoming rough with Patient D, as he was frustrated that he could not get to the back of his mouth properly.’
‘On some occasions, I recall Patient B would scream out in pain, or start crying and shaking during appointments… In general, [the dentist] was very physical with Patient B and physically moved her around all the time’
– parent of Patient B
In addition, it was found that he treated Patient D while suspended from the NHS dental performers list. The committee took into account that the dentist was suspended by NHS England in January 2021 and this appointment happened on 2 March 2021. Whilst the parent of Patient D accepts that another dentist was present, she was adamant that it was the investigated dentist who treated her son.
Failed in duty of care
In another instance, it was found he spoke ‘rudely and abruptly’ to another child, known as Patient C.
In a statement, the parent of the patient said: ‘In the appointment (I cannot recall the date) I recall [the dentist] stating angrily “you need to clean your teeth” and “how do you expect to have good teeth, if you don’t open your mouth wider”. I was concerned as [he] came across as threatening and [his] tone was short and angry.’
Similarly, the committee found he failed in his duty of care to treat another child patient – Patient B – with kindness and compassion by physically pushing her back into the chair.
The patient’s parent said: ‘Patient B did not like [the dentist] as he was really rough with her. On some occasions, I recall Patient B would scream out in pain, or start crying and shaking during appointments… In general, [the dentist] was very physical with Patient B and physically moved her around all the time. For example on numerous appointments he would push or pull Patient B to manipulate her positioning on the chair, and he would pull her backwards by the shoulders if Patient B tried to sit up or get out of the chair.’
‘Incompatible’ with dental registration
It was also found that the practice’s automated external defibrillator (‘AED’) pads and oxygen cylinder were out of date, with the expiry dates being June 2019 and 25 October 2020 respectively.
The General Dental Council (GDC) expert witness stated in his oral evidence that a oxygen cylinder is essential to provide the patient oxygen when required. The oxygen cylinder loses pressure over a period of time, which provides a serious risk of harm.
The committee found that there was a ‘high risk of repetition’ when it came to the dentist’s behaviour. ‘[The dentist’s] dishonest conduct is highly damaging to his fitness to practise, relating as it did to a blatant disregard for restrictions put in place on his practice to protect the public and was a deliberate departure from the fundamental tenet to act with honesty and integrity,’ it stated.
Whilst the dentist had no previous fitness to practise history, the committee noted that the heads of charge it found proved ‘stretched over a significant period of time, are unremediated and placed patients and staff at significant risk of harm, and in some cases caused actual harm’.
The committee concluded: ‘In short, [the dentist’s] conduct is fundamentally incompatible with registration. The committee has therefore determined that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose in the particular circumstances of this case is that of erasure.’
Follow Dentistry.co.uk on Instagram to keep up with all the latest dental news and trends.
