If you were to observe children in Primary School, as I am asked to do often in my role as Vice Chair of Governors at Greythorn Primary School in Nottingham, you will see that one of their greatest instincts is that of fairness.
It’s reversed though, they cannot stand unfairness, they will not abide unfairness if they see, in their eyes, others being treated differently to them.
It tends to work both ways, the majority of children in Key Stage 1 will stand up for their fellows if they feel it is unfair but will also scream and shout terribly if they feel they have been unfairly treated. It seems to me that this is a basic human instinct.
To that end, I think one of the main issues that the dental profession has in the climate of heavy touch regulation imposed by the GDC in it’s present form and the statutory framework as it exists at the moment, is the feeling of dreadful unfairness. This was brought to light most recently by a post on Facebook by one of my friends who pointed out one of the charges in a Fitness to Practice case which was up and coming at the time of writing this blog. The charge read as follows: “Failed to record a reason for the denture try-in”
Here is the rub, the GDC has the ability to produce and enforce general guidance for the profession. I had re-read the guidance and nowhere specifically in the guidance does it state that we must record the reason for a denture try-in!
You could extrapolate this out in general terms through the guidance if you wanted to suggest that it is inferred but it is in no way specific. If the GDC is not required to be specific then why is the dental profession required to be specific? To record that a try-in was carried out is to infer that a try-in was required to try in a denture to make sure the tried in denture was appropriately tried in and during the try-in the denture fitted (or it did not hence the requirement for a re-try-in)
At the moment no one can see the wood for the trees. For the authorities or the regulators to be gloriously general and non-specific therefore enforcing specificity from the registrants is entirely ridiculous, let alone a charge like that which is utterly outrageous. It would appear from the FTP charge sheets that I see at present (including my own from my own case) people are making up charges for fun which is no way relate to any patient complaints and in no way relate to complaints against the registrant. I have seen many of these now and have seen many of the cases which have gone awry for the GDC where huge mistakes have been made and errors of procedure have been made in abundance; this happened in my own case.
If they want to be specific with the profession then the Professional Standards Authority should be allowed to be specific with them and the charge sheet against the GDC would be enormous.
Leave a comment