Dentist fined £150,000 for keeping patients' teeth too clean
Britain is facing a hidden dental disaster as kids are needing multiple teeth removed at their first ever appointment.
NHS dentist Rob Mew revealed the shocking cases he has encountered after opening his doors to one new child patient every Thursday, reports the Mirror.
The Mirror travelled to Devon, one of Britain's worst 'dentistry deserts' as part of theut Dentisrs for All campaign.
Our sister site visited Fairfield House Dental Surgery in Exmouth which is one of the few in Devon still seeing NHS patients.
Owner Rob passionately believes in the NHS and its founding principle that it should care for patients from "cradle to grave".
However, that is the only reason his practice still treats NHS patients, as it could earn hundreds of thousands of pounds more going private.
Rob has been fined £150,000 by the NHS in a funding "claw back" effectively for maintaining his patients healthy teeth through regular check ups and preventative work.
It is an example of the widely discredited NHS dental payment contract which is causing dentists to quit the health service in their droves to see only private patients.
Every Thursday, Rob opens his NHS books for local children, many of whom have gone years without a check-up. Some have never been seen at all.
Rob, who has three kids of his own, aged ten, eight and four, said: "That's one of the reasons I do it because I have young children but it's quite emotional. We were seeing four and five year olds who had so much decay we just had to send them to hospital to get extractions. There's such a backlog of sending these kids to have general anaesthetic to get the teeth out so we're trying to maintain them until they get their teeth extracted.
'One of the dentists saw a seventeen year old who hadn't seen a dentist in ten years and needed 28 fillings. You've got really emotional parents that are feeling really guilty that they have got themselves into this position. One of our nurses said she couldn't work on that list because it was too upsetting because she has kids of a similar age. It's a really sad situation.'
Rob's practice, Fairfield House Dental Surgery, has been serving patients for over 100 years. It offers free supervised tooth brushing in schools, and sends its team out to breastfeeding and toddler groups to teach parents about oral health.
Rob, 43, said: 'We're blessed with a group of patients who've been with us for a long time, some have been coming here for more than 50 years. So that's why I'm still with the NHS because it feels like the right thing to do, to keep going for them. It's a kind of cradle to grave service which is what the NHS was supposed to be. But that's the only reason we're doing it - out of good will.'
Why is top dentist being 'fined' £150,000 for keeping his patients' teeth too healthy?
Rob Mew owns a rare example of a thriving NHS dental practice in the middle of a dental desert. Fairfield House Dental Surgery employs ten dentists and does free outreach work in the local community to improve oral health.
Despite all this, Rob's being forced to return £150,000 in NHS money, as the surgery had not carried out enough Units of Dental Activity (UDA). It was having to pay £50,000 a month over three months.
UDAs are the metric used by the NHS in its dentistry payment contract which has been deemed 'not fit for purpose' by Parliament's Health and Social Care Committee.
Under the current deal, practices must carry out a set number of Units of Dental Activity (UDAs) every year or face financial penalties.
The contract requires practices to agree to perform a set number of UDAs - and they are penalised if they come in below or above this. A check-up is worth one UDA while giving a patient a filling racks up three UDAs.
Rob told the Mirror: 'We are being penalised for preventing patients requiring more UDAs. We have £150,000 'claw back' this year but we have 19,000 NHS patients which is more than the practice has ever had. The clawback is for not doing enough UDAs but when patients are being looked after better they don't have as much need for dental work.'
Fairfield surgery gives his patients a check up every 12 months whereas other practices call lower risk patients back for check ups every two years. Rob said: 'We are seeing them yearly and that's one UDA. We are preventing loss of tooth. A GP practice is paid for how many patients they have on their list. That's how they should be funding dentistry.'
Rob says between five and ten people call the practice every day desperate to be seen by an NHS dentist. He has taken on as many as he can but has just started a waiting list. He said: 'We have got patients travelling to be seen here from as far away as north Wales, Manchester and Sheffield.
"The NHS dental contract in England only funds enough for half the population to be treated so these patients have moved away but can't get a dentist. And the Exmouth population is exploding and we have a load of new housing but no more dentistry money to treat the people in those houses.'
A key Mirror campaign demand is reform of the controversial NHS payment contract which disincentivises dentists from treating the patients who need it most. Dentists get paid the same for delivering three or 20 fillings, often leaving the practice treating NHS patients at a loss.
Last week the Government published its Ten Year Health Plan which pledged that "by 2035 the NHS dental system will be transformed" - but the British Dental Association insists contract reform must happen much sooner.
Rob said: 'With these most vulnerable patients with high needs it's really tricky for the practice to to make that work [financially].
'We had a family last Thursday with three kids and they had never been seen by a dentist. There was decay everywhere and they clearly need a lot of work and the parents are saying we haven't been able to be seen anywhere. And they're just tired because they've been calling around practices trying to get in and it kind of gets put on the back burner.
'We had a 14 year old girl come in a couple of weeks ago and she had four crowns put on her back teeth. And you're thinking, if we hadn't handled that soon she would have a couple of back teeth missing and then a lower denture.'
Dental surgeries are being squeezed by soaring costs, with Fairfield House Dental Surgery now scrambling to raise £30,000 just to buy a new dentist's chair.
Rob has worked in the NHS in some form for 28 years, starting at the age of 15 in a hospital kitchen. He added: 'I've got a lot of good will towards the NHS so yeh I try my best to make it work.'
But NHS dentistry cannot rely on good will alone.
The British Dental Association (BDA) has told the Public Accounts Committee the UK Government is propping up NHS services by relying on practices delivering care at a loss - fuelling an exodus of NHS dentists into lucrative private work.
Figures from the BDA show a typical practice loses over £40 for every set of NHS dentures it fits, and £7 for each new patient exam. A damning report from Westminster's Health Select Committee branded the state of NHS dentistry as 'unacceptable in the 21st century'.
And under the current NHS contract, dentists are restricted by quotas,limiting how many patients they can see and procedures they can carry out each year.
To make matters worse, the Tories have slashed funding in real terms for over a decade. England's £3billion dental budget now only stretches far enough to treat half of the population.
This week, ministers are expected to reveal long-awaited details on plans to finally reform the system. Labour pledged to overhaul the dental contract before the last General Election, but there are serious doubts about whether meaningful change will happen in this Parliament, or whether the Treasury will cough up the cash needed for real reform.
It's understood the UK Government will announce new plans on Tuesday aimed at reversing the current system, one which discourages dentists from taking on patients who need complex care.
Care minister Stephen Kinnock, who has responsibility for dentistry, told the Mirror: 'It isn't right that it's less cost effective for dentists to take on patients who need more complex and extensive treatments like crowns and bridges.'This is why this government will overhaul the dental contract to make it more attractive to offer NHS dental care, especially for those who need it most. As we deliver on the Plan for Change, we're fixing NHS dentistry to make it fit for the future.'
The Government's announcement will also include confirmation of 700,000 extra urgent and emergency dental appointments this year. Officials say these emergency slots will become part of standard NHS provision, and that practices will be paid separately to deliver them, alongside routine check-ups.
Devon worst 'Dental Desert'
It's now harder to get an NHS dentist in the South West of England than anywhere else in the UK, with Devon emerging as one of the country's worst so-called 'dental deserts'.
New figures from the annual GP Patient Survey show that just 72% of people with an NHS dentist in Devon managed to get an appointment, way below the national average of 84%.
Survey responses were grouped by regional Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) which include NHS bodies, local councils and voluntary organisations. The One Devon ICB is responsible for the health of the population in the county. Among people who were already in with an NHS dentist, Devon saw just 72% of people successfully get an appointment. In the wider South West region this was 74% while for England as a whole it was 84%.
Of those who attempted to get an appointment at a practice they had not been seen at before, only 14% were successful in Devon. This compared to 19% in the South West region and 33% as the average for England.
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like.
To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
The big caveat is that many will not have tried to get an appointment if they thought they had no chance.
The data shows only a minority of dentists are taking on new adult patients, and in Devon and the South West, hardly any are.
British Dental Association chair Eddie Crouch said: 'This shows why the government is right to commit to major surgery for NHS dentistry, rather than mere sticking plasters. But we need pace. This service is on the critical list, and demoralised dentists are walking away every day this contract remains in force. If we don't make a break in this Parliament there may not be a service left to save.'
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Social Care said: 'This government inherited a broken NHS dental system but we are getting on with fixing it through our 10 Year Health Plan.
'We have already begun the rollout of 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments, a 'golden hello' scheme is underway to recruit dentists to areas with the most need and we are reforming the NHS dental contract, with a shift to focus on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists - including introducing tie-ins for those trained in the NHS."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
NHS physician associates should not diagnose untriaged patients, review finds
NHS physician associates should be banned from diagnosing patients who have not already been seen by a doctor, a government review has concluded. The review calls for the government to overhaul the role of physician associates (PAs), who it says have been substituted in for doctors to fill staffing gaps despite having significantly less training. The health secretary, Wes Streeting, ordered the review of the more than 3,500 PAs and 100 anaesthesia associates (AAs) working in the NHS after six high-profile deaths of patients who were misdiagnosed by PAs. Prof Gillian Leng, the president of the Royal Society of Medicine, spoke to more than 1,000 people for the review and concluded there were 'no convincing reasons to abolish the roles of AA or PA' but there was also no case 'for continuing with the roles unchanged'. She wrote in the report: 'Despite the significantly shorter training, PAs and to a lesser extent AAs have sometimes been used to fill roles designed for doctors. The rationale for doing this is unclear, and was probably one of pragmatism and practicality, relying on medical staff to provide the additional expertise when required. 'This lack of planning may have been responsible for driving the resentment felt by some resident [doctors] and potentially exposed patients to unnecessary risk.' One of her main recommendations is that PAs should not see 'undifferentiated or untriaged patients', meaning those who have not yet been diagnosed by a doctor. Leng recommended further work to establish which patients they should be able to see and to set clinical protocols that would enable PAs to diagnose patients with mild ailments. 'Let's be clear, [the role of PAs] is working well in some places, but there indeed has been some substitution and any substitution is clearly risky and confusing for patients,' she said. Leng recommended PAs should be renamed 'physician assistants' and AAs 'physician assistants in anaesthesia' to ensure that patients and their families are clear on whether they have been seen by a doctor. She observed that this confusion was the core concern voiced by the bereaved families she had spoken to, who believed it was a contributing factor in their loved ones' death. She noted in her report that despite the role's rapid expansion since it was introduced in the early 2000s, there was limited data and evidence on whether PAs were safe or unsafe. Most concerns related to PAs being the first clinician to see patients unsupervised. 'Making the wrong initial diagnosis and putting patients on an inappropriate pathway can be catastrophic,' she said. The report found that 'relatively few doctors felt it was appropriate for PAs to diagnose illness' and it identified disparities between the tasks PAs considered right for them to carry out and what doctors thought. Leng recommended that newly qualified PAs work in hospitals for two years before they are allowed to work in GP surgeries or mental health trusts, enabling them to start their careers where there are more training opportunities and supervision. She also recommended more leadership training for doctors, who shared concerns about the lack of preparation for supervision duties, and better career development for PAs and AAs. She suggested a named doctor supervise each PA, while uniforms, lanyards, badges and staff information should be standardised to 'distinguish physician assistants from doctors'. Dr Tom Dolphin, the chair of the British Medical Association, said the report 'laid bare the catastrophic failures in NHS leadership that have put patients at serious risk of harm', but he argued the recommendations did not go far enough on national patient safety standards. 'Prof Leng has succeeded in exposing how NHS England introduced these roles and encouraged their expansion without any robust evidence of their safety,' he said. 'The report reveals inadequate national leadership, no accountability and no attempt to listen to the concerns raised by doctors, patients and coroners. 'The blurring of lines between doctors and non-doctors, aided and abetted by the GMC [General Medical Council], has been an unfolding disaster for all to see, and many doctors today will be relieved to see that they were right to raise the alarm,' Dolphin said. Dr Naru Narayanan, the president of the hospital doctors' union, the HSCA, said: 'Safety concerns will continue until a properly defined national scope is established. The review acknowledges this by calling for standardised job descriptions and clinical protocols. This work needs to be fast-tracked. 'Given how poorly these roles have been defined, and the fact physician assistants earn more after a couple of years of clinical training than resident doctors do after nearly a decade in medicine, it's not surprising there's been tension. We've got a shortage of medical training places and a limited supply of trainers. Additional support and time for senior doctors, as recommended by Prof Leng, are essential.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Six patient deaths linked to NHS using less qualified physician associates as substitute for doctors, government-ordered review reveals
Physician associates should be banned from seeing patients who have not been reviewed by a doctor to cut the risk of 'catastrophic' harm, a government-ordered review says. Their job title should also be changed to physician assistant to reflect the fact they are supposed to support doctors rather than replace them, it adds. More than 3,500 PAs work in the NHS and there have been previous calls for an expansion in their number. But health secretary Wes Streeting ordered a review last November amid concerns they are being inappropriately used as substitutes for doctors, despite having significantly less training. There have also been a number of high profile deaths of patients who had been misdiagnosed by PAs - sometimes unaware they had not seen a doctor. Professor Gillian Leng, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, was commissioned to lead the review into the safety of the roles and how they can be effectively integrated into a multidisciplinary healthcare team. Presenting her findings yesterday, she said she hopes her report will bring some 'perspective' to what has become a 'heated debate', with some doctors expressing fierce opposition to PAs. Trainee doctors in particular are angry that PAs can earn more than them, work more sociable hours and take some of their training opportunities. Professor Leng acknowledged PAs have been used to plug gaps on doctors' rotas and called for major changes to how they work and are supervised. This includes a requirement to work in a hospital for at least two years before being allowed to practice in a GP surgery or mental health trust and a need to have a named senior doctor as a line manager. PAs must be clearly identifiable from a doctor, using 'standardised measures', such as national clothing, lanyards and name badges, she added. But Professor Leng also called for their scope of practice to be widened with some PAs allowed to prescribe medicines, order MRI scans and train to become more highly paid 'advanced' PAs. She said: 'Crucially I'm recommending that PAs should not see undifferentiated or untriaged patients. 'If (patients) are triaged, they (PAs) should be able to see adult patients with minor ailments in line with relevant guidance from the Royal College of GPs.' She said more detail was needed on which patients can be seen by PAs and national clinical protocols should be developed in this area. She added: 'Let's be clear, (the role of PAs) is working well in some places, but there indeed has been some substitution and any substitution is clearly risky and confusing for patients.' Professor Leng recommended PAs should be renamed 'physician assistants' to position them 'as a supportive, complementary member of the medical team', while the 100 anaesthesia associates (AAs) working in the NHS should be renamed 'physician assistants in anaesthesia'. Six patient deaths linked to contact with PAs have been recorded by coroners in England. One high-profile death involved Emily Chesterton, 30, who died from a pulmonary embolism. She was misdiagnosed by a PA on two occasions and told she had anxiety. The Leng Review said safety concerns in relation to PAs were 'almost always about making a diagnosis and deciding the initial treatment, particularly in primary care or the emergency department, where patients first present with new symptoms'. It added: 'It is here that the risk of missing an unusual disease or condition is highest, and where the more extensive training of doctors across a breadth of specialties is important. 'Making the wrong initial diagnosis and putting patients on an inappropriate pathway can be catastrophic.' Despite the shorter two years of training for PAs, where local NHS services have struggled with filling roles, 'the easy option in some cases was simply to fill gaps in medical rotas with PAs', the report went on. 'This seems to have been done without taking into account the more limited training of the PAs and how the roles would interact, other than with the caveat that they would be supervised by doctors. 'This lack of planning may have been responsible for driving the resentment felt by some resident (doctors) and potentially exposed patients to unnecessary risk.' When it comes to the safety of PAs and AAs, Professor Leng said the 'evidence is poor', with 'no compelling evidence' in published research 'that PAs were safe to work as doctor substitutes in primary care'. She also said the evidence was poor when it came to cost effectiveness. When it came to AAs, there were questions over whether the role was actually needed as fully qualified anaesthetists already face tough competition to find a job. Professor Leng, who spoke to around 1,000 people, concluded: 'I could be absolutely clear that the roles are not so unsafe that they have to be discontinued, but neither does the evidence support proceeding with no change.' PAs only have to complete a two year postgraduate course, rather than a medical degree. Some PA courses let students join after studying geography, human resources or English literature. Dr Tom Dolphin, chair of BMA council, said the review 'laid bare the catastrophic failures in NHS leadership that have put patients at serious risk of harm' but said its recommendations 'do not adequately protect patients'. 'A major opportunity has been missed to end the postcode lottery of what PAs can and can't do,' Dr Dolphin added. 'By failing to recommend authoritative, nationally-agreed scopes of practice, Professor Leng has ignored the most urgent demand of the medical profession, and left patients at the mercy of local decisions by employers who can still choose where and how assistants can work.' Dr Dolphin also urged the Government and employers 'not to waste any time' in renaming PAs 'physician assistants', as recommended by the review. The government is expected to respond to the review in a written ministerial statement to Parliament today.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Only doctors should diagnose patients, not PAs, Government review says
Physician associates (PAs) should be banned from diagnosing patients who have not already had contact with a doctor for their illness, a Government-ordered review has found. The report also acknowledged that NHS PAs have been used as substitutes for doctors, despite having significantly less training. As such, calls for a major change to the role of PAs have also been made. More than 3,500 PAs and 100 anaesthesia associates (AAs) are working in the NHS and there have been previous calls for an expansion in their number. But a general lack of support for the roles from the medical profession – plus high-profile deaths of patients who were misdiagnosed by PAs – led Health Secretary Wes Streeting to order a review. Presenting her findings, Professor Gillian Leng, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said: 'Crucially I'm recommending that PAs should not see undifferentiated or untriaged patients. 'If (patients) are triaged, they (PAs) should be able to see adult patients with minor ailments in line with relevant guidance from the Royal College of GPs.' She said more detail was needed on which patients can be seen by PAs and national clinical protocols should be developed in this area. She added: 'Let's be clear, (the role of PAs) is working well in some places, but there indeed has been some substitution and any substitution is clearly risky and confusing for patients.' Prof Leng also recommended PAs should be renamed 'physician assistants' to position them 'as a supportive, complementary member of the medical team', while AAs should be renamed 'physician assistants in anaesthesia'. Newly qualified PAs should also work in hospitals for two years before they are allowed to work in GP surgeries or mental health trusts. The study said safety concerns in relation to PAs were 'almost always about making a diagnosis and deciding the initial treatment, particularly in primary care or the emergency department, where patients first present with new symptoms.' It added: 'It is here that the risk of missing an unusual disease or condition is highest, and where the more extensive training of doctors across a breadth of specialties is important. 'Making the wrong initial diagnosis and putting patients on an inappropriate pathway can be catastrophic.' Despite the shorter two years of training for PAs, where local NHS services have struggled with filling roles, 'the easy option in some cases was simply to fill gaps in medical rotas with PAs', the report went on. 'This seems to have been done without taking into account the more limited training of the PAs and how the roles would interact, other than with the caveat that they would be supervised by doctors. 'This lack of planning may have been responsible for driving the resentment felt by some resident (doctors) and potentially exposed patients to unnecessary risk.' The study noted concerns in the medical profession about the impact on training and employment of resident doctors when PAs take on tasks. When it comes to the safety of PAs and AAs, Prof Leng said the 'evidence is poor', with 'no compelling evidence' in published research 'that PAs were safe to work as doctor substitutes in primary care'. She also said the evidence was poor when it came to cost effectiveness. The report said that while research suggests patients are satisfied after seeing a PA, some did not know they were not seeing a doctor. Many doctors also told the review they were concerned about the time required to supervise PAs and AAs and the lack of training for supervisors about the role of PAs. A survey conducted for the report found 'relatively few doctors felt it was appropriate for PAs to diagnose illness', with only 29% of those working with PAs in primary care backing this, and 14% in secondary care. The survey also found 'marked differences in which tasks were considered appropriate in primary and secondary care, with PAs significantly more likely than doctors to believe that certain activities were appropriate for them to carry out'. When it came to AAs, there were also questions over whether the role was actually needed as fully qualified anaesthetists already face tough competition to find a job. Prof Leng concluded there were 'no convincing reasons to abolish the roles of AA or PA' but there is also no case 'for continuing with the roles unchanged'. She recommended that both PAs and AAs should have the opportunity for ongoing training and development, with potential to prescribe medicines in the future, and they should also should have the opportunity to become an 'advanced' PA or AA. A named doctor should take overall responsibility for each PA, while clothing, lanyards, badges and staff information should be standardised to 'distinguish physician assistants from doctors'. Six patient deaths linked to contact with PAs have been recorded by coroners in England. One high-profile death involved Emily Chesterton, 30, who died from a pulmonary embolism. She was misdiagnosed by a PA on two occasions and told she had anxiety. Unison head of health, Helga Pile, said: 'By working closely with doctors and other healthcare professionals, these roles can make a real difference to the improvement of services and reduction of waiting lists. 'Clearer identification of physician associates and anaesthesia associates will give patients a greater understanding of who's delivering their care and what they can expect. '
