SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about two matters. The first related to whether or not the treatment plan prepared by a dentist employed by the dental practice was clinically necessary. We did not uphold this complaint on the basis that images taken of the teeth and an x-ray showed that the work set out in the treatment plan was required to the teeth as there was decay, part of a filling was missing and part of a tooth was missing. The clinical notes also referred to this. The second related to a failure to provide C with evidence that the work was clinically necessary when asked to do so. We did not uphold this complaint on the basis that the clinical notes and the images were sent to C by the dental practice. The dentist, who had left the practice subsequently, wrote to C to provide them with information about why the treatment was necessary. Whilst we did not uphold this complaint we did recognise that communication when dealing with the complaint could have been better and a more coordinated approach between the dentist and the dental practice would have resulted in better complaint handling. We noted the dental practice had already apologised for this and made an offer to C as a good will gesture. Related reading View Decision Report 201902176 as a PDF (24.26 KB) Updated: September 23, 2020

Mr C complained that, due to a high staff turnover within the practice, he had been seen by a number of different dentists over the years. He said that each dentist changed his treatment plan and, as a result, his gum disease was never treated. In responding, the practice noted that the staff turnover was outwith their control. They confirmed that a treatment plan should continue from one dentist to the next unless there were clinical grounds for changing it. They did not comment specifically on Mr C's treatment plan as they did not have his records to hand. We took independent advice from one of our dental advisers. He said the treatment carried out by the various dentists appeared consistent in that the primary aim was to address Mr C's chronic gum disease. He explained that this was a longstanding condition which progressed to the position where loss of the teeth was inevitable, despite the treatment carried out. He concluded that the treatment provided by the practice was reasonable. We accepted this advice and did not uphold the complaint. We were concerned, however, that the practice had responded to Mr C's complaint about his dental treatment without specifically referring to his dental records. We also noted that their response had not told Mr C that he could complain to us in the event that he remained dissatisfied. In addition, we noted that the practice sent Mr C's original dental records to us and did not use a secure postal method. In light of these observations, we made some recommendations.

Miss C complained about a dentist. The dental practice acknowledged her complaint and told her they intended to respond within 21 days. On the 21st day they wrote to her saying that they needed more time to reach a decision, and would respond within around two weeks. They provided a final response around two weeks later. Miss C complained that the time taken by the practice to respond had been unreasonable. Our investigation found that the practice's complaints procedure said they would seek to respond within ten working days and would give reasons for any requirement to extend this. As the practice had not given Miss C such reasons we upheld the complaint.