PSOW Individual Decisions

The investigation considered whether the dentures provided to Mr A were clinically appropriate, including the advice provided about their longevity. By way of an outcome Mr A wanted the cost of the dentures reimbursed. The Dental Practice agreed as part of a settlement to reimburse Mr A the sum of £260 for the dental treatment it provided in 2025, which included the cost of the dentures. It also said that as part of wider learning the Dental Practice will feed back any points of learning to the Dentist.

Mrs C complained that the Practice failed to provide a response to her complaint about her ill-fitting denture. The Ombudsman found that the Practice had failed to provide a response to Mrs C’s complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mrs C. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Practice’s agreement to write to Mrs C with an apology and explanation for the delay in issuing a complaint response and for the failure to provide regular and meaningful updates, offer to pay Mrs C £50 in recognition of her time and trouble in making a complaint to the Ombudsman and issue a complaint response within 2 weeks.

Mr C complained on behalf of his wife, Mrs C, about the care and treatment she received from a dental practice in the area of the Health Board. Mr C complained that dental treatment for Mrs C’s fractured front tooth and crown was urgent and should not have been dealt with on a private care basis. Specifically, the investigation considered whether the decision not to offer a timely NHS appointment was made appropriately on 5 February 2024. It also considered whether the decision to decline Mr and Mrs C any further dental care on an NHS basis was appropriate. The Ombudsman found that the decision not to offer an urgent NHS appointment on 5 February 2024 was made appropriately owing to the presenting symptoms not requiring urgent care or treatment. The offer of a routine NHS appointment in April was acceptable. It was also found that there was no maladministration in relation to the decision by the Practice to decline Mr and Mrs C any further dental care, based on a breakdown in the relationship. The Ombudsman did not uphold either complaint.

Mr M complained that the Practice had failed to respond to his complaints about the poor care and treatment provided to him. The Ombudsman found that the Practice had responded to one complaint but that there had been a failure to respond to the second complaint and this had caused frustration and uncertainty for Mr M. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the agreement of the Practice to apologise to Mr M and provide him with a complaint response within 3 weeks.

Mr C who had complained to the Dental Practice about the poor fitting dentures that he had paid for, was unhappy that in a telephone conversation the Dental Practice had informed him that he had been “struck off their register” due to a breakdown of trust. Mr C, who had been refunded the cost of his treatment, said that he was now having to find a new NHS Dentist. He wanted an apology for the way he had been treated. The Ombudsman found no evidence that the decision itself to remove Mr C from the Dental Practice’s register was improperly taken. However, the Dental Practice accepted that there was a shortcoming in its complaint handling process and how it how it had applied its removal policy (“the Policy”) in Mr C’s case. In particular, it had not written to him setting out the reasons for its decision to remove him from its dental list. In reviewing the Policy, the Ombudsman concluded that there was a degree of ambiguity about the circumstances when a letter would be written to a patient. The Dental Practice agreed as part of a settlement that it would apologise to Mr C for the shortcomings identified in the way that it followed the Policy. In addition, it would amend the Policy so that it was clear that a letter would be sent in all cases about a patient’s removal and relevant information provided in relation to NHS patients.

We investigated complaints made by Mr A about his treatment by his Dental Practice. These consisted of whether the decision to remove a tooth was appropriate given the information known at the time, if Mr A should have been referred to a consultant earlier, and if the decision made not to treat Mr A owing to him being a high-risk patient, was appropriate and in line with relevant guidance. After the investigation had started, Mr A contacted the Ombudsman to state that he had since gone back to the Practice to ask for treatment but was refused because he had made a complaint. The Ombudsman therefore used her own initiative powers to expand the investigation and include 2 further heads of complaint. These considered whether it was reasonable for the Practice to refuse Mr A treatment because of the complaint he had referred to the Ombudsman, and, whether, in determining that future treatment be refused to Mr A, the Practice had failed to inform him appropriately of its decision. The investigation found that although some communication around Mr A’s treatment and changes to dental contracts could perhaps, have been explained better, ultimately Mr A’s dental treatment was appropriate for his presenting symptoms and in-line with relevant guidance. Therefore, these elements of his complaint were not upheld. However, the investigation found that the subsequent decision to refuse to see Mr A as a patient after he had made a complaint, and the way this was communicated to him was not in-line with relevant complaint handling standards, which was an injustice to him. These aspects of the complaint were therefore upheld. The Ombudsman therefore recommended that the Practice should apologise to Mr A for the failings identified and offer him £500 in recognition of the injustice caused to him. She also recommended that it should review its complaint handling practices to ensure that they are in-line with relevant Regulations and “Putting Things Right”, and invite the Health Board t

We investigated complaints made by Mr A about his treatment by his Dental Practice. These consisted of whether the decision to remove a tooth was appropriate given the information known at the time, if Mr A should have been referred to a consultant earlier, and if the decision made not to treat Mr A owing to him being a high-risk patient, was appropriate and in line with relevant guidance. After the investigation had started, Mr A contacted the Ombudsman to state that he had since gone back to the Practice to ask for treatment but was refused because he had made a complaint. The Ombudsman therefore used her own initiative powers to expand the investigation and include 2 further heads of complaint. These considered whether it was reasonable for the Practice to refuse Mr A treatment because of the complaint he had referred to the Ombudsman, and, whether, in determining that future treatment be refused to Mr A, the Practice had failed to inform him appropriately of its decision. The investigation found that although some communication around Mr A’s treatment and changes to dental contracts could perhaps, have been explained better, ultimately Mr A’s dental treatment was appropriate for his presenting symptoms and in-line with relevant guidance. Therefore, these elements of his complaint were not upheld. However, the investigation found that the subsequent decision to refuse to see Mr A as a patient after he had made a complaint, and the way this was communicated to him was not in-line with relevant complaint handling standards, which was an injustice to him. These aspects of the complaint were therefore upheld. The Ombudsman therefore recommended that the Practice should apologise to Mr A for the failings identified and offer him £500 in recognition of the injustice caused to him. She also recommended that it should review its complaint handling practices to ensure that they are in-line with relevant Regulations and “Putting Things Right”, and invite the Health Board t

Miss X complained that a Dental Practice in the area of Swansea Bay University Health Board had failed to respond to her complaint about being deregistered from the Practice. Miss X had made her complaint in September 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Practice had failed to respond to Miss X’s complaint and had not properly updated her during the delay. The Ombudsman said this caused frustration for Miss X and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Practice’s agreement to apologise and explain the reasons for the delay to Miss X, to offer her £50 in recognition of the complaint handling delay and failure to update Miss X, and to issue its complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mrs T complained that the Dental Practice wrote to her and informed her that she had been removed from its patient list on the basis she had been rude and aggressive. Mrs T further complained that despite her writing to the Practice to reconsider the decision, she had not received a response. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mrs T had not yet received a responds to the concerns raised and therefore contacted the Practice. The Practice explained that there was a new Practice Manager at the Dental Practice and that she was not in post when Mrs T was removed from the practice list. As an alternative to an investigation, the Practice agreed to respond in writing to Mrs T’s complaint and provide her with options about her continuing dentalcare within 30 working days

Mrs X complained about the care and treatment her mother, Mrs Y, received from a Dental Practice (“the Practice”) in the area of Swansea Bay University Health Board. The investigation considered whether: a) There was a failure to provide appropriate dental treatment on 24 February 2021, and whether this resulted in Mrs Y suffering with trigeminal neuralgia (a sudden, severe facial pain often described as a sharp shooting pain or like having an electric shock in the jaw, teeth or gums). b) Mrs Y’s follow-up dental care was appropriate. The Ombudsman found that the treatment Mrs Y received on 24 February was within the range of appropriate dental practice and in line with relevant standards; there was no evidence of service failure in the treatment provided or that there was a causal link between the anaesthetic injections given to Mrs Y before the tooth extraction procedure on this date and the later diagnosis of trigeminal neuralgia. The Ombudsman did not uphold this complaint. The Ombudsman found that it was appropriate not to schedule a follow-up appointment for Mrs Y and that any follow-up appointment was a matter for Mrs Y. However, by the dentist’s own admission, follow-up care on 17 March was not in line with relevant guidance and she had taken action to reflect on the appointment and to re-familiarise herself with relevant guidance. Whilst failure to follow guidance is generally considered to be maladministration, there was no indication that the treatment received had any measurable adverse impact on Mrs Y. The complaint was not upheld.