The legal fallacies about 'if it was not written down it did not happen', coupled with a warning for 'GDC experts'

How the General Dental Council and NHS UDAs crushed the compassion out of dentists

Various actions and policies of governmental agencies and the General Dental Council (GDC) have crushed the compassion out of many dental professionals. Compassion is not the same as sympathy or empathy; compassion involves doing something practical to overcome a patient's problems. However, many compassionate dental professionals now think of the GDC as a bit like being trapped in a lift with a wasp. The statistical probability is that nothing really terrible is going to happen to you for trying to solve a patient's problems pragmatically, but the tension and the worry that it might is always present. One effective way to reduce the chances of a painful experience is not to undertake slightly risky procedures. It is far, far safer to make copious notes but then to refer on anything potentially problematic, especially under the flawed NHS Units of Dental Activity system, 'just to be on the safe side', while bowing low to the GDC and claiming it is 'outside of one's competence'. The net result is a lack of clinical engagement in solving patients' problems practically, coupled with an ongoing lack of experience and confidence in solving similar patients' problems, as well as shifting some problems unnecessarily on to overloaded hospital departments. Who benefits from those perverse outcomes?

Dentistry - art or science? Has the clinical freedom of the dental professional been undermined by guidelines, authoritative guidance and expert opinion?

The General Dental Council (GDC) requires dental practitioners to provide good-quality care based on current evidence and authoritative guidance. However, this leaves the dental practitioner in a sort of limbo as good quality is an ill-defined term allowing its precise meaning to be open to interpretation. This article sets out to demonstrate that the practice of dentistry is very much more of an art than a science and, as such, relies on individual skill and judgement. It will also show that the 'value' of current evidence as determined by published papers and authoritative guidance is questionable and should not be regarded by dental practitioners as the 'rule'. The interaction between a dentist and a patient essentially consists of clinical decision-making and the implementation of that decision and, therefore, it is essential to understand the nature of decision-making and the context in which implementation takes place. Practitioners should exercise their clinical judgement, putting the interests of the patient first and not feel constrained by the threat of sanctions from the GDC or other regulatory bodies.