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。

IF 1.4 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Journal of Orthodontics Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-09-14 DOI:10.1177/1465312520954219
Zahid Ahmad, Parmjit Singh
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估牙科总委员会(GDC)专业行为委员会(PCC)正畸病例的特点。设计:回顾2015-2018年GDC网站上与正畸相关的听证会或涉及正畸治疗提供者的听证会的数据。背景:观察性描述性研究。方法:由一名研究人员从GDC网站获取数据,检索正畸病例。我们联系了GDC的新闻办公室,以确保所有数据都被捕获。对于每宗符合纳入准则的个案,登记人的人口统计资料、已证实/未证实的控罪及个案的最终结果均会被记录。结果:2015-2018年共有23例登记病例涉及正畸,占PCC听证会总数的8%。9名(39%)注册者拥有正畸学会员资格,但只有7名(30%)注册为英国GDC正畸学专家名单上的正畸医生。与临床评估、同意和记录保存相关的收费主要被证明是牙医(各13/16次听证会),而正畸医生主要被证明是治疗水平差和不配合GDC(各4/7次听证会)。总的来说,施加条件的有10例(44%),免除7例(30%),停职的有5例(22%),谴责的有1例(4%)。总结性结论:GDC会继续严肃对待轻罪行为,审慎的做法是,注册人应熟悉这些听证会的性质,以减少陷入这种困境的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Orthodontics
Journal of Orthodontics DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
15.40%
发文量
55
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信