Case History
A dentist arrived at work one morning to find a letter from the GDC informing him that the practice was the subject of a GDC investigation.
The investigation had come about as the result of an anonymous complaint made to the GDC regarding an advertisement in the local Yellow Pages. The advert stated that the practice was a 'centre of excellence' and that it 'specialised in all aspects of dentistry'.
The dentist was astonished, having had no knowledge about the advert. An in-house investigation discovered that the advert had been placed by the practice's financial director. However, because the dentist was the clinical director of the practice and a GDC registrant (the financial director was not a registrant), the GDC decided that the dentist should answer the complaint.
DDU assistance
The dentist, a DDU member, sought advice on a response. The dento-legal adviser instructed a DDU in-house solicitor to assist the dentist with the GDC investigation.
Following a lengthy discussion involving the dentist, the solicitor and the dento-legal adviser, a letter of response was drafted to be placed before the GDC investigating committee.
The letter explained how the advert had come to be published, the steps the member had taken to try and have the advert withdrawn once he had been made aware of it and the procedures the member had put in place at the practice to ensure that this type of problem would not happen again.
The investigating committee decided to issue a published letter of warning stating that the GDC accepted that the member had been unaware of the advert and had gone to great lengths to ensure that it was withdrawn.
The GDC also accepted that the member had reviewed the relevant guidance and implemented a new practice procedure for placing advertisements.
Nevertheless, the committee was of the view that, as the practice principal, responsibility for the advert rested with our member. Furthermore, it warned that in future our member must make absolutely sure that no misleading statements would be made in promotional material.
The DDU has seen a number of complaints to the GDC, often anonymous, regarding promotional material produced by dentists and their practices. The material may be adverts in publications such as the Yellow Pages, local newspapers, flyers or internet sites.
Following consideration of this type of complaint by the GDC investigating committee, a dentist (or other dental professional) may receive a letter of advice or a letter of warning from the GDC if, for example, an advert is misleading or makes unjustifiable claims about the practice.
The GDC takes a very serious view about any statements that could be regarded as misleading to patients and the public.
Learning points
- Have a practice protocol regarding the placing of advertisements and other publicity
- Remember that publicity includes internet sites
- Ensure that no publicity statement could be regarded as misleading
- Never refer to a practitioner as a specialist unless they are on the relevant GDC specialist list
- Never refer to a practice as a specialist centre unless all the practitioners are on a specialist list
- Phrases such as 'centre of excellence' should be avoided.
The DDU is happy to advise members on draft advertisement and publicity material.
This page was correct at publication on 10/12/2010. Any guidance is intended as general guidance for members only. If you are a member and need specific advice relating to your own circumstances, please contact one of our advisers.