SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C saw her dentist about a number of issues and agreed to undertake a course of dental treatment which included denture fittings over a number of months. However, Ms C told us that once treatment had been completed the dentures were ill-fitting and the cost of the planned treatment had not been made clear to her. We took independent advice from a dental adviser. We found that the evidence from Ms C's dental records showed the standard of treatment provided at each appointment during this period was reasonable and that treatment decisions were in line with options under the NHS. We also found that the evidence showed the planned treatment costs were discussed with Ms C and adjustments were made to meet Ms C's communication needs. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201805107 as a PDF (24.08 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Ms C complained to us about a dental practice's handling of her complaint about a dentist. We were satisfied that the practice's response had adequately addressed the issues raised by Ms C. The response was also issued in line with the timescales referred to in the practice's complaints policy. In view of this, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508022 as a PDF (10.72 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the practice about treatment that her son (Mr A) had received. She was unhappy with the response that she received and information that was provided about the principal dentist at the practice. After investigating, we upheld Ms C's complaint. We considered that although the response to her complaint about treatment addressed her concerns adequately, there were a number of other complaints handling failings. We found that the response letter did not refer Ms C to us if she remained dissatisfied with her complaint and that the practice's complaints handling procedure was not in line with the relevant Scottish Government guidance. We also found that there had been a failure to advise Ms C of changes to the staff structure at the practice in a timely fashion.

Mrs C's dentist extracted her bottom left molar. Eleven days later, the dentist extracted Mrs C's upper right molar and prescribed antibiotics because of pain at the site of the previous extraction. Several days after that, Mrs C was treated by another dentist for infected sockets. They gave her an antiseptic mouthwash and a dressing to promote healing. Mrs C was also given advice about giving up smoking and pain relief. Mrs C said that shards of tooth came out of her gum at the extraction sites. A radiograph was taken and showed no retained roots. She returned to the dental practice a month later and another dressing was put in place. At the end of the following month, Mrs C returned to the practice saying that another back tooth was causing discomfort and that she felt unwell. She was prescribed antibiotics and had further extractions a couple of months later. She was then referred to the dental hospital. Mrs C complained that the extraction sites have not healed, she has loose teeth and she takes antidepressants due to the poor cosmetic appearance of her teeth. Mrs C also complained that there were delays by the practice in responding to her complaint. We found that the clinical care and treatment provided was reasonable, but that there were failings in relation to record-keeping, about which we made a number of recommendations. In relation to complaints handling, the practice delayed in sending a written response, but did take other action. They arranged a meeting between Mrs C and a dental practitioner to discuss her complaint and referred Mrs C to hospital. We were satisfied that, on the whole, the practice dealt with Mrs C's complaint in line with the NHS complaints procedure as they took action to respond to and resolve it within a reasonable time.

Ms C attended a dental practice for the first time. She said she was still waiting fifteen minutes after the appointment time, and that no one had told her that there would be a delay or explained it to her. She said that there were staff around the reception area who could have done so, including the practice manager. Ms C said that after approaching and speaking to some staff members she decided to leave without seeing the dentist and without registering as a patient. She also had some complaints about the practice's handling of her subsequent written complaint about her experience. The practice's account of events on the day was that, without waiting for Ms C to approach them, they had told her of the delay and apologised. They said that the various members of staff who had been involved all considered her behaviour to have been difficult, and the records had been noted to the effect that she would not be accepted as a patient if she decided to come back. Regarding their complaints handling, they said they had tried to reply to the complaint by telephone but that Ms C had not wanted to speak to them. Although we considered the note in the records to be quite strong evidence, we could not establish sufficient facts to decide between the two contradictory accounts of what happened on the day. In the absence of firm evidence one way or the other, we could not uphold the complaint about those events. The practice, however, told us they now displayed a sign on the wall, saying that if a patient was waiting more than ten minutes after their appointment time, they should tell reception staff. We considered this to be a constructive approach to the complaint. Our investigation found that the specific issues in Ms C's complaint had been reasonably handled. It is acceptable practice to try to reply to complaints by telephone, although when this did not work out, the practice should have sent a written reply. However, at that point Ms C had telephoned us for advice, we had