The role of the clinician continues to evolve in the provision of appliances either for the treatment of snoring or to assist in the treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome (OSA). The most recent development is the inclusion of the role of the clinical dental technician (CDT) in the General Dental Council’s Scope of Practice document.

The law relating to tooth whitening changed on 31 October 2012, effectively increasing the percentage of hydrogen peroxide contained or released in tooth whitening or bleaching products to 6%, subject to conditions which include first use by a dental practitioner or under their direct supervision and that the patient is 18 years of age or over.

On 11 May 2013, the Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) "Regulations" 2013 took effect. The Regulations were made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and they implement (in part) EC Directive 2010/32/EU as required under European law.

The Resuscitation Council (UK) published a statement in July 2006 concerning the standards expected of dental practitioners and dental care professionals (DCPs) in general practice within the UK for the management of medical emergencies and resuscitation techniques.

Standards for the Dental Team is published by the General Dental Council (GDC) and came into effect 30 September 2013. The document sets out the standards of conduct, performance and ethics that govern dental professionals in the United Kingdom. It specifies the principles, standards and guidance which apply to all members of the dental team, and also sets out what patients can expect from a dental professional.

In 2008, the General Dental Council issued a press release in the wake of its Scope of Practice consultation which took place earlier that year. The GDC states: ‘Dental hygienists and dental therapists can carry out tooth whitening on the prescription of a dentist, if they have the necessary additional skills. Taking impressions to a dentist’s prescription, and making bleaching trays to a dentist’s prescription, are within the scope of additional skills for dental nurses.’

Standard 9.1.2 says that I must not make disparaging remarks about another member of the dental team. What is meant by this?

What is the best way to deal with a situation in which you believe a colleague’s work is below standard?

What information do I need to display about members of staff either in the practice or on the website?

Why would I want to draw attention to the practice complaints procedure? Surely that will encourage patients to sue me?

Not only is the prevalence of tooth surface loss (TSL) increasing, but clinicians increasingly find themselves facing criticism and challenges regarding its diagnosis and management.

Sadly the dental surgery environment is not always conducive to effective communication. Often the dentist and other members of the dental team are dealing with a variety of patients, all with different needs, and they may be subject to severe time pressures.

There are many examples in clinical dentistry of treatment which is largely dependent upon the level of co-operation from the patient, and/or the degree to which the patient follows the advice and recommendations of the clinical team.

One of the advantages of keeping careful and detailed records of a patient’s pain history is that it highlights significant changes and developments in the features of the patient’s symptoms which can, in turn, lead the clinician to the correct diagnosis.

New techniques, new materials and perhaps more importantly, a shift in treatment philosophies in recent years has led to a greater emphasis upon minimally interventive, preventive approaches to the management of the early carious lesion. In some key respects new technology has helped, and in other respects it has hindered, this process. In a dentolegal sense, the most likely allegation would be that the clinician failed to recognise, act upon and appropriately manage the small or early carious lesion and as a result it was allowed to develop, causing pain and suffering together with the cost and inconvenience of more extensive (and more expensive) treatment.

People are living longer, and more people are retaining their teeth into later life. Consequently, the overall potential periodontal risk is rapidly increasing. Most allegations of undiagnosed, untreated and under-treated periodontal disease arise when a patient sees a new dentist for the first time. This may result from the retirement of the patient’s previous dentist, or simply because the dentist has left the practice. Sometimes the patient attends a different dentist in an emergency situation, or following the sale of the practice where they have been treated over many years.

In case after case, the question arises of what information a patient was given in advance of their treatment. Obviously, this is material to the quality of the consent obtained from the patient, and yet dentists, hygienists and therapists often find themselves unable to demonstrate with any certainty, exactly what the patient was told, when, and in what terms.

Dentists communicate with their technicians (and vice versa) in a variety of ways, and on a variety of subjects. Yet in the experience of Dental Protection, many valuable opportunities to improve the quality of these communications seem to be missed. Although there has to have been some dialogue, there is often little or no tangible evidence that this was so.

We are often asked whether members need any additional protection when they are training, supervising or advising professional colleagues, either in a formally recognised mentoring capacity or in a less formal arrangement which otherwise shares many of the same characteristics. Coupled with this, we are often asked if the member is liable for the acts and omissions of a mentee.

We believe that we are uniquely placed to appreciate the role that CPD can play in the areas of professional performance, patient safety and the quality of patient care.