SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C made several complaints about her dental practice. She complained that her dentist failed to deliver the appropriate treatment and service when she asked him to check on her bridge. She also complained that either the dentist or the dental practice failed to ensure that the dental hospital received her x-rays within a reasonable time, and that the failure to do so led to a delay in her being seen at the dental hospital and so exacerbated the decay in the teeth supporting the bridge. On investigation we found that the actions of the dentist did not result in the loss of the bridge. The bridge had failed due to Ms C having extensive decay in both supporting teeth. The dentist had provided Ms C with appropriate advice, which was to have a new bridge fitted or otherwise for him to refer her to the dental hospital. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of Ms C’s complaint. Ms C asked to be referred to the dental hospital. Following the referral, x-rays were required by the dental hospital. However, due to a lack of record-keeping by the dental practice, our investigation was unable to establish what had occurred regarding the taking of the x-rays and when they were sent to and received by the dental hospital. We, therefore, found that the dentist or the dental practice failed to ensure that the dental hospital received the x-rays within a reasonable time and upheld this part of Ms C’s complaint. We accepted that, as a result, Ms C had to wait a number of months before being seen and given a diagnosis at the dental hospital. While we considered that part of this delay was caused by the dental hospital not having Ms C’s x-rays we also considered that part of the delay was also due to Ms C’s personal circumstances. Furthermore, while the delay caused by the lack of x-rays was unfortunate we considered that it would not have had any effect on the outcome in Ms C’s case and we, therefore, did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Mr C contacted his dental practice to bring forward an appointment for treatment. He was told by the practice manager that no earlier appointments were available. He asked to speak to a dentist but was told that none were available. The conversation became heated and the manager terminated the call. Mr C and his wife visited the practice and were met by the practice manager who they claimed was rude and aggressive. They raised a complaint with a dentist but did not feel that he listened to their concerns. During their exchanges with the dentist and the practice manager, their relationship with the practice broke down to the extent that Mr C asked to be removed from the patient register. Mr C complained about the practice's handling of his request for an earlier appointment and his subsequent complaint. He also complained that the practice manager was rude and aggressive during telephone calls with him. We did not find that the practice failed to deal appropriately with his appointment request or his complaint. Whilst there was corroborating evidence of the comments made by the practice manager, we were unable to conclude that she acted aggressively or rudely toward Mr C or his wife. Related reading View Decision Report 201100349 as a PDF (14.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son (Mr A) about the care and treatment he received from his dentist. The dentist had extracted four of Mr A's adult teeth that were different from those requested by the orthodontist. When the dentist found out that he had extracted the wrong teeth, he apologised to Mrs C. He explained that there was an error in the orthodontist's letter. We upheld the complaint as we found that the responsibility clearly lay with the dentist. He should have realised that there was a typing error and clarified matters with the orthodontist before carrying out extractions. However, our medical adviser noted that Mr A's orthodontist should still be able to produce an orthodontic result comparable to that which was initially planned. The dentist has, however, changed his processes and procedures as a result of the complaint to ensure that he does not make the same mistake again. When this report was first published on 18 January 2012, it was incorrectly categorised as being about Lothian NHS Board. This was due to an administrative error which we discovered on 18 January 2012, and for which we apologise. Related reading View Decision Report 201100050 as a PDF (14.92 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C was referred to a dentist for root canal treatment under sedation. Following treatment, Ms C developed an infection, which she felt was due to inappropriate dental treatment. She also complained that, when she attended to have her stitches removed, the dentist initially refused to do so until Ms C's outstanding account was paid. We established that the dentist had provided appropriate treatment and that it is recognised that infections can develop following root canal treatment. Our dental adviser noted, however, that the dentist should have carried out a post treatment x-ray, which would have made him aware that part of the sealant material had become dislodged. For this reason we upheld the complaint that the treatment was not performed properly, and drew the attention of the dentist to our adviser's view. We did not uphold Ms C’s other complaints that the infections arose as a result of poor treatment and about the dentist's attitude when Ms C returned to have the stiches removed. Our adviser noted that it would be normal practice to ask a patient to settle their account on completion of treatment and in any event the dentist did remove Ms C's stitches even though the account had not been paid. Related reading View Decision Report 201100466 as a PDF (14.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018