{"title":"在牙科总委员会专业行为委员会前,对正畸病例进行的四年审查。","authors":"Zahid Ahmad, Parmjit Singh","doi":"10.1177/1465312520954219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the characteristics of orthodontic cases at the General Dental Council's (GDC) Professional Conduct Committee (PCC).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Review of data from the GDC website for orthodontically related hearings or those involving orthodontic treatment providers during 2015-2018.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Observational descriptive study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were accessed from the GDC website by a single researcher to retrieve orthodontic cases. The press office of the GDC was contacted to ensure all data were captured. For each case that met the inclusion criteria, demographic details of the registrant, the charges proved/not proved and final outcome of the case were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 23 registrant cases involved orthodontics and this was 8% of the total number of PCC hearings during 2015-2018. Nine (39%) of the registrants had a Membership in Orthodontics qualification although only 7 (30%) were registered as orthodontists on the UK GDC Specialist List in Orthodontics. Charges related to clinical assessment, consent and record keeping were mostly proved for dentists (13/16 hearings for each) whereas a poor standard of treatment and not cooperating with the GDC were mostly proved for orthodontists (4/7 hearings for each). Overall, conditions were imposed in 10 (44%) cases, erasure in 7 (30%) cases, suspension in 5 (22%) cases and a reprimand in 1 (4%) case.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The GDC continue to view misdemeanours seriously and it would be prudent for registrants to be familiar with the nature of these hearings to reduce the risk of finding themselves in such a predicament.</p>","PeriodicalId":16677,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthodontics","volume":" ","pages":"391-399"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A four-year review of orthodontic cases appearing before the General Dental Council Professional Conduct Committee.\",\"authors\":\"Zahid Ahmad, Parmjit Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1465312520954219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the characteristics of orthodontic cases at the General Dental Council's (GDC) Professional Conduct Committee (PCC).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Review of data from the GDC website for orthodontically related hearings or those involving orthodontic treatment providers during 2015-2018.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Observational descriptive study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were accessed from the GDC website by a single researcher to retrieve orthodontic cases. The press office of the GDC was contacted to ensure all data were captured. For each case that met the inclusion criteria, demographic details of the registrant, the charges proved/not proved and final outcome of the case were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 23 registrant cases involved orthodontics and this was 8% of the total number of PCC hearings during 2015-2018. Nine (39%) of the registrants had a Membership in Orthodontics qualification although only 7 (30%) were registered as orthodontists on the UK GDC Specialist List in Orthodontics. Charges related to clinical assessment, consent and record keeping were mostly proved for dentists (13/16 hearings for each) whereas a poor standard of treatment and not cooperating with the GDC were mostly proved for orthodontists (4/7 hearings for each). Overall, conditions were imposed in 10 (44%) cases, erasure in 7 (30%) cases, suspension in 5 (22%) cases and a reprimand in 1 (4%) case.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The GDC continue to view misdemeanours seriously and it would be prudent for registrants to be familiar with the nature of these hearings to reduce the risk of finding themselves in such a predicament.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthodontics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"391-399\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1465312520954219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/9/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1465312520954219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
A four-year review of orthodontic cases appearing before the General Dental Council Professional Conduct Committee.
Objectives: To evaluate the characteristics of orthodontic cases at the General Dental Council's (GDC) Professional Conduct Committee (PCC).
Design: Review of data from the GDC website for orthodontically related hearings or those involving orthodontic treatment providers during 2015-2018.
Setting: Observational descriptive study.
Methods: Data were accessed from the GDC website by a single researcher to retrieve orthodontic cases. The press office of the GDC was contacted to ensure all data were captured. For each case that met the inclusion criteria, demographic details of the registrant, the charges proved/not proved and final outcome of the case were recorded.
Results: A total of 23 registrant cases involved orthodontics and this was 8% of the total number of PCC hearings during 2015-2018. Nine (39%) of the registrants had a Membership in Orthodontics qualification although only 7 (30%) were registered as orthodontists on the UK GDC Specialist List in Orthodontics. Charges related to clinical assessment, consent and record keeping were mostly proved for dentists (13/16 hearings for each) whereas a poor standard of treatment and not cooperating with the GDC were mostly proved for orthodontists (4/7 hearings for each). Overall, conditions were imposed in 10 (44%) cases, erasure in 7 (30%) cases, suspension in 5 (22%) cases and a reprimand in 1 (4%) case.
Conclusion: The GDC continue to view misdemeanours seriously and it would be prudent for registrants to be familiar with the nature of these hearings to reduce the risk of finding themselves in such a predicament.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Orthodontics has an international circulation, publishing papers from throughout the world. The official journal of the British Orthodontic Society, it aims to publish high quality, evidence-based, clinically orientated or clinically relevant original research papers that will underpin evidence based orthodontic care. It particularly welcomes reports on prospective research into different treatment methods and techniques but also systematic reviews, meta-analyses and studies which will stimulate interest in new developments. Regular features include original papers on clinically relevant topics, clinical case reports, reviews of the orthodontic literature, editorials, book reviews, correspondence and other features of interest to the orthodontic community. The Journal is published in full colour throughout.