If you choose to customise the site it will help you to find the most relevant content for your needs. You will still be able to access all content on the site.
Don't have an account?
Click here to register
DDU solicitor Tamsin Thomas examines two cases that demonstrate the impact of GDC investigation delays on members.
21 February 2020
The DDU supported a member when they faced a claim alleging a failure to diagnose and treat periodontal disease in a young patient who had been attending the member's practice for two years.
8 October 2019
A patient brought a claim alleging that a DDU member had failed to appropriately use a mouth clamp during a crown preparation, leading to a dislocation of the jaw and the need for treatment under general anaesthetic to relocate it.
17 September 2019
The DDU was able to successfully defend a member who faced a claim alleging a failure to identify and treat caries and fit a satisfactory crown, resulting in crown fracture, infection and tooth extraction.
9 September 2019
A patient brought a claim alleging that a DDU member caused them to suffer neuropraxia during the extraction of their LR7, and either misplaced dental instruments or caused damage to the mucosa.
30 August 2019
A DDU member called the advice line with a query about limited staffing arrangements for weekend working.
16 August 2019
A DDU dentist faced a claim after a patient alleged a failure to assess his periodontal condition before starting orthodontic treatment, and a failure to detect the periodontal attachment and bone loss that subsequently occurred.
14 August 2019
A DDU member asked for advice around their obligations to a patient who wanted cosmetic treatment overseas, which the member thought was not in the patient's best interests.
A DDU adviser was able to guide a member through a query about a request for a non-clinically justified radiograph that had been made by a patient in relation to a claim being pursued against another dentist.
A DDU associate member called for advice after the practice owners said he wasn't allowed to tell patients was he planning to leave, because of the impact they feared it might have on those patients' practice payment plans.