Dentist cleared after hearing

12:44pm Saturday 21st April 2007

Comments (0)   Have your say »

A DENTIST has been cleared of serious professional misconduct following allegations he did not provide adequate care to a patient.

Thomas Hind admitted he "completely forgot" to obtain written consent from a patient before extracting two of her teeth.

The General Dentist Council (GDC) ruled this was an "oversight" on Mr Hind's part and he was cleared of any wrong doing yesterday.

Mr Hind, who is registered at Kent House Road, Beckenham, told the hearing he had obtained verbal consent but failed to get written consent from the patient, known as Mrs A.

He said: "Mrs A seemed very much to understand my explanation of the conscious sedation procedure and she was very much of the mind she was there to have these two teeth extracted.

"I took this as a verbal consent to treatment and sedation. I forgot to get her to sign the consent form. I completely forgot."

The GDC heard the patient was made to authorise the treatment after it had taken place and sign a cheque when she was still woozy from sedation.

When Mrs A started vomiting, she was made to lie in the hallway.

She was given the consent form as she came to, then taken to a chair in the garden of the Cambridge Anaesthetic Centre to recover, the hearing heard.

The GDC ruled Mr Hind was not responsible for the care the patient received in recovery.

Chairman Martyn Green said the committee was satisfied the care provided to Mrs A in the recovery room was poor.

However, it ruled Mr Hind was not aware of the events which took place during the woman's recovery and he had no responsibility for them.

The GDC ruled Mrs A's care was the responsibility of the sedationist and the recovery nurse, not Mr Hind.

Mr Green said: "The committee was satisfied the failure on the part of Mr Hind to obtain written consent of Mrs A fell outside the standards which could be expected of a reasonable dentist.

"The committee was also satisfied the failure to obtain written consent was not in the best interests of the patient."

The GDC did not accept Mr Hind had acted unprofessionally and not in Mrs A's best interests by failing to rehearse emergency procedures with the dental team assisting him before the treatment began.

An accusation he had failed to ensure the anaesthetist was adhering to the standards of minimum intervention during sedation was also dismissed.

Clearing Mr Hind of serious professional misconduct, Mr Green said: "The committee was satisfied the failure to obtain written consent was an oversight on the part of Mr Hind.

"Accordingly, the committee was not satisfied his conduct fell seriously below which could be reasonably expected."