Dental Protection

Female dental professionals must be supported through menopause

Female dentists and dental care professionals (DCPs) should be well supported through the menopause and perimenopause to ensure we retain passionate and skilled clinicians in the workforce for as long as possible, according to Dental Protection.

Dental Protection said around 93% of DCPs and 52% of dentists are female, and many could at some stage be impacted by menopause symptoms such as anxiety, depression, poor concentration, brain fog, dizziness and insomnia while doing their best to care for patients in challenging environments.

It said mental wellbeing support, awareness from practice owners and managers as well as workplace adjustments may help female dental professionals continue to perform at their best, and stay in the workforce for longer.

Yvonne Shaw, Deputy Director at Dental Protection, said: “The menopause and the associated symptoms can vary widely; however, we need to ensure female colleagues aren’t suffering in silence during this phase of their lives. Brain fog, forgetfulness, poor concentration and insomnia can make any job difficult, but particularly so in a challenging environment like dentistry.

“All female dental colleagues suffering with symptoms should feel comfortable to discuss workplace adjustments and seek mental wellbeing support. Providing a working environment that is open and supportive helps to ensure those affected do not feel isolated. Having a menopause workplace policy can ensure wider understanding and provide reassurance that support will be available if needed. Managers and practice owners should consider training on the menopause and how the symptoms can impact on the wellbeing of some individuals and the wider team.

“If we do not destigmatise menopause, we may lose many skilled and highly valued dental professionals during a time when the profession can ill-afford it. A supportive culture will alleviate additional stress, enable individuals to continue to perform at their best for patients, and thrive in their careers for longer.”

Dental Protection recommendations:

  1. Dental practice owners should consider whether they have adequate procedures and support in place to help all staff affected by the menopause, for example by introducing a menopause policy, flexible working arrangements, and procedures which ensure those affected can seek support without fear of adverse impacts on their career or professional reputation.
  2. All staff, including new dentists and DCPs joining the profession, as well as those who are already practising, should be trained on the menopause.
  3. Dental professionals who may be struggling with menopause symptoms themselves should seek support and professional advice on options to manage symptoms and lifestyle measures. Dental Protection also has a role to play – we listen to and care for members, including offering support with their wellbeing and our 24/7 confidential counselling service is available for those struggling with the menopause.

Practice owners and managers should consider training on the menopause, including the impact the symptoms can have on working females and their teams. Anyone who is suffering with menopausal symptoms should feel supported, and able to discuss any necessary changes to working arrangements.

BADN welcomes Dental Protection statement

The British Association of Dental Nurses (BADN), the UK’s professional association for dental nurses, welcomes the statement issued by Dental Protection.

BADN has recently published its Menopause Guide and Policy for dental practices to adopt in support of menopausal employees.  This BADN Policy has been endorsed by the British Association of Dental Therapists (BADT), the British Society of Dental Hygiene and Therapy (BSDHT), the British Dental Industry Association (BDIA), the College of General Dentistry (CGDent), the Dental Laboratories’ Association (DLA), the Dental Technologists’ Association (DTA), the Orthodontic National Group (ONG) and the British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA).  The BADN Menopause Policy document is available on the BADN website.

“We are delighted that Dental Protection are supporting BADN’s move to increase awareness of menopause” said BADN President-elect Debra Worthington “to encourage discussion of the issues facing menopausal women in the workforce.  We recognise that this is still a difficult subject for many people and have produced this advice sheet with lists of relevant legislation, useful articles/websites and  a specimen policy to break this taboo.”

In the UK, 99% of dental nurses, 96% of orthodontic therapists, 94% of dental hygienists,  92% of dental therapists, 52% of dentists and 27% of dental technicians are female – 78% of the regulated dental profession as a whole – and the policy outlines the challenges faced by menopausal women in the workplace and suggests ways in which employers can support menopausal employees.

Dental Protection welcomes PSA drive to wipe out inequality in regulation

Dental Protection has welcomed recommendations by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) for regulators, including the GDC, to help tackle inequalities in professional regulation.

The PSA oversees the GDC and other professional regulators and produces reports to recommend improvements. In its latest report, Safer Care for All, the PSA states that tackling discrimination and inequality requires a collaborative, coordinated effort from all bodies involved in the provision and regulation of healthcare, including regulators.

The report calls on the GDC and other regulators to review and address “more directly and urgently” processes which may have a disproportionate impact on certain groups of registrants, and ensure investigators have the right tools to interrogate information included within a referral, to help avoid progressing complaints against certain groups of registrants that are not well-founded.

The PSA in its September 2022 response to the GDC’s consultation on its strategic plan for the next three years, also asks the GDC to consider how it is embedding equality, diversity and inclusion across all workstreams, and in relation to all strategic priorities.

Dr Raj Rattan, Dental Director at Dental Protection, said: “All dental professionals have the right to an inclusive environment, and regulatory processes that are fair and just.

“The GDC’s 2021-2023 vision is to be a champion of diversity, equality and inclusion and one objective is to ensure that regulatory activity is fair and transparent. This includes analysing over-representation in fitness to practise cases and what this means. 

“We are pleased to see this focus and recognise there are multiple and complex factors behind this issue. However, the PSA is right to call on the GDC, alongside other regulators, to address the issue more directly and with more urgency. We stand ready to work with and assist the GDC in this area wherever possible.”

A spokesperson for the General Dental Council said: “We too welcome the PSA’s report, Safer care for all, and look forward to further discussion with the PSA and other healthcare regulators about the important issues it raises.

“We are committed to ensuring our regulatory activity is fair, transparent, and accessible to all, and appreciate Dr Rattan’s recognition of the complexity of understanding what leads to overrepresentation in fitness to practise. We reflected on this in August when, for the first time, we were able to include a breakdown of cases by EDI characteristics in our Fitness to practise annual statistical report. While we are at the early stages of understanding what the data tells us, its inclusion provides a clear signal of our commitment to this important work, and we look forward to speaking more about this as it progresses.”

2 in 5 dentists who graduated overseas faced fitness to practice hearing without legal support

Nearly two in five dentists (38%) who graduated overseas did not have legal representation when facing a GDC fitness to practise hearing according to figures obtained by Dental Protection covering 2018-21.

The figures, obtained by Dental Protection through an FOI request to the GDC, also showed that those overseas graduates without legal representation were more likely to receive a harsher sanction, compared to overseas graduates with representation. 81% were either suspended or erased from the dentists register, and only 10% received a ‘no impairment’ judgment.

In comparison, 19% of overseas dental graduates with legal representation were either suspended or erased from the dentists register, and 29% received a no impairment judgment. 

Dental Protection said it has been working with education and training providers to stress the importance of professional protection that goes beyond claims to all dentists but particularly to those who are new to the country and trying to decipher the guidelines. It is also calling on the GDC to make it a requirement for all dentists to have protection which includes support with fitness to practise proceedings. Currently it is only a requirement to have protection against claims.

Dr Raj Rattan, Dental Director at Dental Protection, said: “These figures serve as a powerful reminder for all dentists of how important it is to obtain professional protection which includes the ability to request assistance with GDC investigations.

“Dental Protection supports dentists from the moment a GDC complaint is received, to its conclusion at a hearing, providing the very best legal defence and a team of professionals committed to achieving the best possible outcome for members. I cannot imagine facing this lengthy and complex process alone, without someone fighting my corner. Sadly though, 38% of dentists who graduated overseas do, along with 31% of dentists who graduated in the UK.

“I will continue to work with key stakeholders across the UK to help them understand the importance and value of comprehensive professional protection to dentists who graduated in the UK and those who join the workforce from other countries.

“The GDC may also be able to do more to help. It is clear in its indemnity guidance that dental professionals must have appropriate indemnity arrangements in place for clinical negligence claims so patients can seek compensation if they are harmed, and this must be declared before they are able to register or renew registration.

“We welcome this but would like the GDC to consider extending this requirement to include wider protection beyond just claims in the next review of its standards.

“GDC investigations impact on a dentists’ mental health and reputation, and for some have career ending implications. A requirement to have protection and support with regulatory proceedings would be helpful to all dental professionals but particularly for those who are new to the UK, are trying to decipher the various requirements and may be focussing solely on obtaining protection against claims.”

GDC Response:

“While the vast majority of dental professionals will never be involved in a fitness to practise investigation we have spoken before about the importance of engaging in the process for those who have had a concern raised about them. The findings of our research on The concept of Seriousness in fitness to practise, published earlier this year, highlighted the potential for more adverse outcomes in cases where professionals either do not engage in the process, do not attend hearings or where they represent themselves.

“The requirement for healthcare professionals’ indemnity is set by Parliament, and the purpose of that requirement is to protect patients in the case of negligence. Dental professionals can, of course, choose a higher level of cover and support. This remains a personal choice, and not an issue which is either appropriate or possible to change via a regulatory requirement. Our indemnity guidance provides further information about the types of cover available so that dental professionals can make informed choices.”

Dental Protection: GDC strategic goals must consider registrant mental wellbeing

Dental Protection has urged the GDC to ensure one of the key pillars of its three-year strategy includes reducing the impact of a fitness to practise investigation on registrants’ wellbeing.

In its response to the GDC’s consultation on its strategic plan for the next three years, Dental Protection welcomed the second strategic aim to ‘ensure concerns are addressed effectively and proportionately to protect the public’ but it said proportionality is also integral to the wellbeing of registrants.

Dental Protection has called on the GDC to ensure this strategic aim considers registrant wellbeing and helps to address the level of fear that exists among dental professionals regarding a GDC investigation.

Dr Raj Rattan, Dental Director at Dental Protection, said: “We agree that driving improvements to ensure the public’s concerns are addressed effectively and proportionately should be one of the GDC’s main strategic priorities. Dental Protection would like to work with the GDC on this aim, in particular on the desire to move towards a system which resolves complaints with only the most serious being dealt with as a fitness to practise investigation.

“Proportionate use of powers is integral not only in protecting the public but in protecting the mental wellbeing of registrants who may find themselves being the subject of a complaint to the regulator. We believe that reducing the stress of a fitness to practise process is a key tenet of the GDC being perceived as fair and proportionate and therefore should form a key part of this strategic aim.

“The level of fear that exists amongst dental professionals regarding the GDC is concerning. In a recent survey of early career dentists nearly a third told us they worry about a GDC investigation always, most of the time, or frequently. Fear does not support a culture of openness and learning; something all healthcare professionals should seek to foster. In respect of the GDC, this fear appears to stem principally from the fitness to practise process.

“We appreciate the GDC is making improvements in this area, but we hope more can be done. For example, we believe the GDC could explore how initial contact is made with a registrant to reduce the stress from what will always be an unpleasant letter to receive. A review of its style guide, perhaps considering best practice across regulators, could also be implemented as part of its strategic aim.

“While we understand certain legal information must be imparted to registrants, the tone and language of some written communications can cause unnecessary distress, overwhelm, and impact on mental wellbeing. Tone and language are also useful tools in creating a sense of proportionality.

“We would welcome the opportunity to work with the GDC to enable further progress in this area.”

GDC response 

A spokesperson for the General Dental Council said: “We thank Dental Protection for their response to the consultation on our strategic plans. We look forward to considering their views alongside the other responses we received and will share the consultation outcome after Council has decided on our plans for the next three years.

“We understand that a fitness to practise investigation can be a stressful experience and agree that proportionate use of powers plays a significant role in that. In the absence of government reform, we continue to explore and make improvements wherever possible, but we are often frustrated by the outdated and inflexible legislation which dictates much of our work. We look forward to working with our stakeholders to ensure that our role is understood and to make appropriate contributions to issues of shared concern across dentistry, including the experiences of those going through fitness to practise.”

Dental Care Professionals face harsh sanctions when unrepresented at tribunals, says Dental Protection

Nearly three quarters (72%) of UK Dental Care Professionals (DCPs) did not have legal representation when facing a GDC fitness to practise hearing according to figures obtained by Dental Protection covering 2018-21. This compares to 34% of dentists who were not represented.

The figures, obtained by Dental Protection through an FOI request to the GDC, also showed that those DCPs without legal representation were more likely to receive a harsher sanction. 77% were either suspended or erased from the register, and only 10% were concluded with no adverse finding.

In comparison, 32% of DCPs with legal representation were either suspended or erased from the dentists register, and 39% were concluded with no adverse finding.

Dental Protection is urging dental nurses, technicians, therapists, clinical dental technicians, orthodontic therapists and hygienists to consider the protection they have in place and whether this includes support for GDC investigations, so they do not face the process alone.

Yvonne Shaw, Deputy Director at Dental Director at Dental Protection, said: “These figures serve as a powerful reminder of how important it is to be able to request assistance with GDC investigations. The difference in outcomes when a DCP has legal representation at their hearing is stark.

“Dental Protection supports a range of dental professionals from the moment a GDC complaint is received, to its conclusion at a hearing, providing the very best legal defence and a team of professionals committed to achieving the best possible outcome for members. I cannot imagine facing this lengthy and complex process alone, without someone fighting my corner. Sadly though, the majority of DCPs do, and go on to face tougher sanctions at their hearing when compared to those with legal representation.

“Whilst employed members of the dental team may be protected from clinical negligence claims through practice or hospital schemes, these may not include support with GDC investigations.  Similarly, some individual products may not extend beyond claims indemnity.  These products are designed to ensure patients are able to seek compensation if they are harmed and satisfy the legal requirement for claims indemnity. 

“GDC investigations impact on mental health and reputation, and for some have career ending implications. It is important that DCPs understand the nature of the protection they have in place and whether they should obtain additional support for GDC investigations.”

A spokesperson for the GDC said:

“While the vast majority of dental professionals will never be involved in a fitness to practise investigation, we have spoken before about the importance of engaging in the process for those who have had a concern raised about them. The findings of our research on The concept of Seriousness in fitness to practise, published earlier this year, highlighted the potential for more adverse outcomes in cases where professionals either do not engage or where they represent themselves. It also found that dentists were reported as having higher levels of representation when compared to dental care professionals. The requirements for healthcare professionals’ indemnity are set by Government and we will provide support as needed for any work on this issue.”

Dental Protection shares guidance to help thwart vicarious liability and non-delegable duty of care claims

Dental Protection has set out a range of steps to help practice owners reduce the chance of a vicarious liability and non-delegable duty of care claim against them being successful.

This follows the 4 February 2022 Court of Appeal judgment on Hughes v Rattan. Dr Rattan, a member of Dental Protection and its Dental Director, was sued by a claimant who had received NHS treatment carried out by associates at his former practice. Dr Rattan never treated the patient, and the treating dentists were willing to respond to the claim, but the claimant via their solicitors refused to engage with them and instead continued to pursue Dr Rattan under both vicarious liability and non-delegable duty of care.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Dr Rattan was not vicariously liable for the actions of the associates concerned because of the freedoms they had in his practice, but the judges agreed with the High Court that the claimant had been placed in Mr Rattan’s care as a patient of the practice, and as such he had a positive non-delegable duty to protect her from harm caused by dental treatment.

Non-delegable duty of care 

Non-delegable duty of care claims focus on the practice owner’s relationship with the patient. Where the practice owner is assumed to have a personal responsibility to the patient, the duty for the safety of that patient remains with the practice owner regardless of whether associates may have carried out their treatment.

In the Hughes v Rattan case, the judges took into consideration the claimant’s own perception that she was a patient of the practice rather than the individual dentists who treated her.  The personal dental treatment plan form used in England and Wales (FP17DC) was significant in relation to this point, as this named Dr Rattan as the dentist providing her treatment.  Furthermore, the claimant had not received any other documentation naming the individual dentists, and it was identified that patients were described as ‘patients of the practice’ under the associates’ agreement.

Dental Protection has set out the following steps for practice owners which may help reinforce that a patient is under the care of the treating dentist, and reduce the risk of a successful claim relating to alleged non-delegable duty of care:

  • Practice leaflets and website – ensure information provided to patients explains that associate dentists are self-employed, independent contractors and are personally responsible for the treatment they provide.
  • FP17DC/FP17DCO – the layout of these forms (used in England and Wales) is such that only the practice owner i.e. the provider under the GDS contract or PDS agreement, can be named. We would encourage practice owners in England and Wales to ensure the name of the treating dentist is added to the form either handwritten alongside the performer number or added into the Oral Health Assessment box which sets out the care and treatment required.
  • Patient correspondence – ensure all correspondence with the patient – right from when the first appointment is booked – makes clear who is the treating dentist, and that the patient will be a patient of that dentist for the duration of their treatment.  This includes ensuring that text confirmation of appointments state who the appointment is with, rather than just stating the practice name.

Vicarious liability

Vicarious liability claims focus on the relationship between the practice owner and the treating clinician. Recent Court cases have specifically examined the relationship between a practice owner and self-employed associate dentists, to ascertain whether it could be considered “akin to employment”.

In the Hughes v Rattan case, Dr Rattan was not considered vicariously liable for the actions of the associate dentists because of the particular freedoms they had in his practice. However as the finding was specific to this case, the judgment does not set a precedent for all other vicarious liability claims.

Dental Protection has set out the following steps to try and limit consideration that the associate relationship with the practice owner is akin to employment, and reduce the risk of a successful vicarious liability claim: 

  • Contracts – check whether any clauses could suggest a relationship akin to employment. For example, if the following are stipulated in associates’ contracts, it is less likely to be considered akin to employment:
  • Associates are responsible for their own tax/national insurance contributions
  • They can work for other practice owners or businesses if they wish
  • They do not receive sick pay or pension from the practice owner
  • They can choose which laboratory they use
  • They are responsible for their own clinical audits of their patients
  • They have complete clinical control over the dental treatment provided to their patient at each consultation, and are responsible for their own standard of work.
  • They pay for their own clothing and non-standard equipment and materials.
  • Indemnity – ensure contracts contain the requirement that associates holds their own indemnity, and check this regularly to confirm it is adequate and appropriate. Also ensure you as practice owner have additional protection against vicarious liability and non-delegable duty of care claims bought against you relating to treatment provided by associates.  If your business is operated through a limited company, it is important to note that the company as an entity in its own right may need separate protection.
  • Business cards – associates should hold their own business cards, with no practice branding.
  • Contact details – retain up to date contact information for all clinicians, including at the point an associate leaves, so that the associate can be contacted in the event a claim is brought against the practice relating to treatment an associate has provided.

Geoff Jones, Executive Director, Member Protection and Support at Dental Protection, said: “Last year, Dental Protection extended its benefits for eligible practice principal members to include additional protection against claims relating to treatment provided by self-employed, contracted associates. Despite this reassurance however, we know experiencing a vicarious liability or non-delegable duty of care claim can still be distressing.

“At the time of the Court of Appeal judgment we said we would consider the Court’s findings carefully and provide further guidance. We have now set out some practical steps to enable practice owners to reinforce that a patient is under the care of the treating dentist, and to limit consideration that the associate relationship is akin to employment.

“To be clear, these steps will not stop certain dental negligence solicitors in their quest to bring vicarious liability and non-delegable duty of care claims against practice owners – even when the treating dentists have been identified and are willing to settle – but they may reduce the risk of such claims being successful. We will continue to do everything we can on this issue, on behalf of members and the wider profession.”

Early career dentists share fears over complaints

88% of young dentists in the UK believe their generation of dentists will receive more patient complaints and legal cases throughout their careers, according to a Dental Protection survey.

In the snapshot survey of dentists who qualified in the last five years, 2 in 5 (41%) of those surveyed went on to say they feel worried about receiving complaints directly from patients after treatment.

Just over half (56%) said they feel confident in their ability to resolve complaints from patients. 

George Wright, Deputy Dental Director at Dental Protection commented: “We support members with complaints day in day out and know being on the receiving end of one is unpleasant for any dental professional. Due to higher patient expectations and a more prevalent complaints culture over the years it is understandable that early career dentists feel the prospect of a complaint is greater than it was for the previous generation of dentists.

“Periodic restrictions affecting access to routine dental care during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the resulting treatment backlog, has also increased the volume of complaints and indeed this has been a common advice query to Dental Protection. While this is a challenging environment for any dental professional, many of those starting their careers in the last few years may feel the ‘firefighting’ reality of general dental practice is not in line with their expectations.

“Now more than ever, young dental professionals need to be confident in handling complaints effectively to help avoid them escalating, and where possible minimising the risk of complaints occurring. This makes skills such as good communication, expectation management, detailed record-keeping and establishing clear consent invaluable.

“We know facing patient complaints on top of a plethora of other pressures can be stressful, and we are always here to offer support and advice. Members are encouraged to contact Dental Protection as soon as a patient complaint is received so we can help from the outset.

“I would also encourage young dentists experiencing work-related stress due to a complaint, to make use of our counselling service which is a member benefit. This service is delivered by ICAS’ independent, qualified counsellors who are available 24/7.”

Dental Protection: ORE backlog needs urgent action as waitlist increases by 35%

Dental Protection is calling on GDC and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to tackle the Overseas Registration Exam (ORE) backlog urgently as figures show the waiting list to sit the exam has increased by 35% compared to last year.

Dental Protection said the backlog for both parts 1 and 2 of the examination, which overseas qualified dentists have to pass in order to register with the GDC and practise unsupervised in the UK, is a cause for concern amid significant demand for dental treatment and public dissatisfaction due to the huge treatment backlog.

Figures obtained by Dental Protection through an FOI request to the GDC, reveal that 1502 dental practitioners applied to take the April 2022 ORE – 1271 for Part 1 of the exam and 231 for Part 2.  In comparison, the number of dentists who were waiting to sit the exam in April 2021 was 1112 marking an increase of 35% in the backlog of dentists waiting to sit the ORE in the last 12 months. 

Sessions made available for the rest of the year are limited to roughly 700 overseas dentists, meaning many will miss out on the chance to complete Parts 1 and 2 before the certification period expires.

DHSC is holding a consultation proposing changes to the GDC international registration legislation, which the ORE falls under, also extending this consultation to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) legislation.

It aims to provide these regulators with greater flexibility to amend their international registration processes, which are currently constrained by prescriptive detail in existing legislation.

The wider dental team also face challenges posed by the existing international registration process.

Responding to the consultation, Dental Protection stressed the importance of holding all dental professionals to the same standards, ensuring they are able to practise safely and not be subject to disproportionate referrals or complaints. Removing all undue delays and burdens to international registration for dentists and DCPs was also identified as an area for improvement.

Yvonne Shaw, Deputy Dental Director and Underwriting Policy Lead at Dental Protection, said: “This exam backlog comes at the worst possible time, when we are seeing public dissatisfaction due to the huge NHS and private treatment backlog, and reports of thousands of dentists quitting the NHS. Now more than ever the process by which overseas graduates are being assessed in order to register and practise in the UK, must be fair and efficient.

“In addition, the longer it takes dentists who qualified overseas to complete the ORE, the longer they could be away from clinical practice. This risks deskilling which, considering the high-pressure workforce they will be joining, should be avoided. Time away from practice may also make passing the ORE even more challenging.

“The current situation is harmful to both dentists and patients, and we call on the GDC and DHSC to ensure the backlog is tackled in a timely manner.

“Whilst it is encouraging that the DHSC is working with the GDC on amending legislation to enable greater flexibility in alternative routes to registration for overseas graduates, the same momentum must be applied to the address the rapidly increasing ORE backlo

Early career dentists: training significantly impacted by Covid-19

Three in four early career dentists in the UK (75%) say the Covid-19 pandemic has had a significant and negative impact on their dental training, according to a Dental Protection survey.

In the snapshot survey of dentists who qualified in the last five years, 70% went on to say the pandemic has impacted their career plans.

Nearly a third (31%) say the reality of general practice is not in line with their expectations, and 39% feel the Covid-19 pandemic has created uncertain career options and choices for the future.

34% say they are exploring career opportunities outside of dentistry.

George Wright, Deputy Dental Director at Dental Protection, said: “A career in dentistry can be immensely rewarding. However, Covid-19 has created many challenges for established and newer entrants to the profession alike and the impact on young dentists is particularly alarming. The future of the profession relies on the strong foundations of early years training including an assessment of career opportunities f and development. It is concerning that many newer entrants say they have experienced a severe and negative impact on their training due to the pandemic.

“Additionally, after almost two years of restrictions impacting the delivery of routine dental care, and a growing backlog necessitating the rising need for emergency appointments, the longstanding goodwill and understanding of the public towards NHS dentistry is fraying. This means many early career dentists have experienced a challenging environment, dominated by clearing the backlog. This is of course quite different to what many will have expected.

“Dental Protection’s early career members continue to benefit from our advice and support. Whatever the question, problem or dilemma, we are only ever a phone call away. We also offer a range of resources, including access to confidential counselling via our trusted partners ICAS, as well as CPD webinars and workshops made available regularly throughout the year.”

Some early career dentists who participated in the survey commented:

“I was lucky with my training in that the university got us back to clinical practice quickly. There is a backlog of patients in practice, and I’m concerned their neglected dentition will cause them to complain in the future as some things may have been prevented.”

“Starting work in practice after leaving dental school has taught me how little dental school prepares you for the realities of work.”

“The pandemic actually helped my career as I could only find private practice associate jobs, this then opened other doors for me.”

Dental Protection: fixed recoverable costs scheme must benefit dentistry

Dental Protection has welcomed proposals to limit the legal costs that can be recovered by claimant lawyers for lower value clinical negligence claims, but believes more could be done to ensure such a scheme benefits dentistry.

A Department of Health and Social Care consultation proposes tackling “increasing and disproportionate legal fees” through the introduction of fixed recoverable costs and a new streamlined process for claims up to the value of £25,000 in England and Wales.

In its response to the consultation, Dental Protection said it fully supported the introduction of a fixed recoverable costs scheme but said the scheme could be made more meaningful for dentistry if it considered cases up to the value of £250,000.

The leading indemnifier cited one case of an alleged failure to diagnose a palatal cyst (UL3 area), where damages were agreed in the sum of £15,000. The original Bill of Costs submitted was however for £93,043.65. Costs were substantially reduced by negotiation to £30,000 however, this figure was twice the amount of damages paid.

Steven Davies, Head of Legal Services at Dental Protection, said: “It is not unusual for the costs awarded to claimant lawyers to be significantly higher than the damages paid to the patient – sometimes it could be two or three times higher. This happens even where claims are settled at an early stage. This cannot be right, and we have long called for a fixed recoverable costs scheme to be introduced.

“It is important however that any scheme is designed to benefit dentistry where this is a significant issue.

“While a scheme for claims up to the value of £25,000 would be a positive step, it does not go far enough. We believe that a fixed recoverable costs scheme should be applied in claims up to the value of £250,000, providing a more cost-effective scheme fit for the future of the profession.

“Given the impact that legal costs have on the price that dental professionals pay to protect themselves against claims, it is vital that any fixed costs regime introduced has a positive impact and is not a wasted opportunity.”