NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

A dental practice in the Salford area

P-004479 · Statement · Decision date: 16 December 2025
Complaint (AI summary)
Miss Y complained about a hygienist's conduct during numerous appointments between 2021-2024, causing trauma, flashbacks, and an inability to receive further treatment.
Outcome (AI summary)
The complaint was closed. It fell outside the 12-month time limit for submission, and no good reason was provided to waive this limit.

Full decision details

The Complaint

3. Miss Y is complaining about the care and treatment she received from the Practice between January 2021 and January 2024. She says she was treated by the same hygienist over numerous appointments but has never felt relaxed or at ease with any of the care provided, and the conduct of the hygienist.

4. Miss Y says due to her experience with the Practice over the years, she has always dreaded hygiene appointments and now experiences flashbacks and negative thoughts. She says she had to repeatedly relive the incidents and the pain, which has left her with a new trauma, and she does not feel able to receive treatments from any hygienist now.

5. Miss Y would like the Practice to make service improvements and provide a financial remedy.

Background

6. Miss Y had five hygiene appointments at the Practice between January 2021 and January 2024. The Practice contacted Miss Y by phone in May 2025 and asked her if she would like an appointment to see a different hygienist.

7. Miss Y emailed the Practice on 1 and 3 June to complain about the five appointments with the hygienist she had between January 2021 and January 2024.

8. The Practice acknowledged the complaint on 5 June. On 20 June the Practice responded to Miss Y’s complaint and signposted her to our service should she remain unhappy with its response.

9. Miss Y brought her complaint to us on 10 July. She complained about harsh, rapid scraping with very little care from the hygienist. She also complained about having to answer questions with tools in her mouth and being aggressively poked five times on her back gum during measurements. She also said her lower inside lip was scratched when a scraper was taken out of her mouth. She also said the hygienist forced her mouth open whilst cleaning her teeth and her jaw kept clicking, which was uncomfortable.

10. Miss Y complained that at her last appointment the hygienist did not make eye contact or greet her. She said she again experienced harsh rapid scraping at this appointment and that her tooth had loosened. She said she was repeatedly pressed to have a deep clean and although a further appointment was made, it was cancelled by the hygienist. She said the hygienist told her she would not see Miss Y if she would not have measurements taken or agree to a deep clean.

Findings

13. The law says a person needs to make their complaint to us within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to us after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so.

14. Miss Y says she received a phone call from the Practice in May 2025 offering her a booking with another hygienist. After this call, the five treatments she had received from the previous hygienist came to the forefront of her mind.

15. Miss Y says she had been treated by the same hygienist for many years and that she never felt relaxed or at ease during the five hygiene appointments between January 2021 and January 2024. Miss Y says suddenly after receiving the phone call in May, it triggered angry feelings and an injustice in the way she had been treated that she could no longer ignore.

16. We acknowledge what Miss Y has told us here about her date of awareness. However, we have considered the issues she has brought to us, that the care was rough and uncomfortable, and about the conduct of the hygienist. We think she should have been aware of this at the time of each appointment, or promptly after the appointments. We do not think the call in May 2025 was needed for Miss Y to have been aware of her concerns.

17. The first appointment Miss Y has concerns about occurred in January 2021. We therefore think Miss Y should have known she had reason to complain in January 2021. If we go by the date when we think Miss Y should have first known she had a reason to complain, then the law says she had until January 2022 to bring the complaint to us.

18. The last appointment Miss Y has concerns about occurred in January 2024. Similarly, we think Miss Y should have known she had a reason to complain in January 2024. Again, if we go by that date, then the law says he had until January 2025 to bring her complaint to us.

19. Miss Y brought her complaint to us on 10 July 2025. We therefore think Miss Y’s complaint is between fifty-one months (for the oldest appointment), and five months outside (for the most recent appointment) of our 12-month time limit.

20. In order to decide whether we should waive the time limit, we have considered the time taken for local resolution to be completed, and Miss Y’s explanation for the delay in bringing the complaint to us. We have discussed this with Miss Y by email.

21. Miss Y raised her complaint in writing to the Practice in June 2025. This was over sixty-three months after we think she should have first known she had a reason to complain, and seventeen months after we think she should have last known she had a reason to complain.

22. The Practice investigated her complaints and provided its response. In total, the Practice took just under three weeks to investigate the complaints. We do not think the time the Practice took to respond contributed to the delay in the complaints reaching us.

23. Miss Y told us the reason there was a delay bringing her complaint to the Practice and us sooner was because of mental illness and having to deal with past trauma. She told us she has experienced intense and deeply upsetting memories over the years that she had to come to terms with.

24. Miss Y says she kept having flashbacks and negative thoughts about the incidents at the Practice, but she was unable to grasp what had happened to be able to address or speak about them due to childhood trauma.

25. Miss Y says over the last year she has looked back on her experience with the Practice with a new light. This new outlook has giving her the confidence to trust her feelings, which is helping her to learn to speak up when something feels wrong. This is the reason why she only complained to the Practice in June 2025.

26. We acknowledge Miss Y has been through a difficult time. While acknowledging what Miss Y had been through, we do think there appear to have been several opportunities for her to bring her complaint to the Practice and to us sooner.

27. She had appointments in January 2021, February and August 2022, June 2023 and January 2024. We think each appointment here was an opportunity to reflect on the care she had received, and the conduct of the hygienist, both at that appointment and at the previous appointments.

28. We sympathise with Miss Y for the difficult situation she has been in. However, the evidence we have seen shows there was a very long delay in Miss Y complaining formally to the Practice about her concerns. We think this then led to delays in raising her concern with us, putting her complaint outside of our time limit. We recognise how upsetting the events within Miss Y’s complaints have been and continue to be for her.

29. We have considered all the evidence, including Miss Y’s reasons for the delays and the time taken for local resolution to be completed. We have decided not to set the time limit aside. We have decided to take no further action on Miss Y’s complaints.

30. It is important we consider and act within the law and we regret any further upset this decision may cause to Miss Y. We hope this statement clearly explains the reasons for our decision and why we will not be considering the complaints further.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Miss Y’s complaint about the care and treatment she received from a Dental Practice in Greater Manchester (the Practice). We were very sorry to hear about Miss Y’s experience at the Practice and of the impact these events had on her. We recognise Miss Y has been through a difficult and distressing time.

2. Miss Y’s complaint falls outside of our 12-month time limit. She has provided us with her reasons for bringing her complaint to us outside of our 12-month time limit, and we have carefully considered these. Having considered all the circumstances of the complaint, including what Miss Y told us, we have decided to take no further action.

Other Decisions About A dental practice in the Salford area

P-004734 · 29 Jan 2026
Mr A complains about aspects of dental treatment he received from his Practice.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →