JUST A FEW MORAL DILEMMAS
When I started, we had no specialist register. The woolly term "dentally fit" was applied. All standards have improved and continue to do so, but who benefits? This is video from a Clayton Christenson talk applied to the USA, but you can see the comparison to specialisation.
We need disruptive innovation for health, but the NHS is too big to adapt, or change.
We need disruptive innovation for health, but the NHS is too big to adapt, or change.
If you specialise and want to focus on a narrow field and charge for the time and effort you have invested, that is understandable. I'm sure we specialise for various reasons, some because we can't do everything well and don't like people.
From the vast majority of the public point of view, a dental practice that provides most procedures well and affordable is adequate for their needs. I would argue that a GDP is of more value to society and should be rewarded accordingly. It's unfair of an expert to criticise work that isn't to the optimum standard of a specialist rather than those achievable within the current system. The NHS. How many have referred to non-existent NHS specialists in RCT or perio? Most referrals finish with one NHS specialist, the oral surgeon. No wonder masses want to leave the profession. Ultimately it's a win/win for the specialist dentist. A lose/lose for the patient and their GDP. Any new system should not support the illusion of what is achievable in a new system, and the profession needs to set guidelines on what is a good service.
If any treatment is not maintained correctly, we know ultimately it will fail. Prevention works.
It's how we can make prevention a clinical and economic win/win for the dentist and their client.
The final slide I missed out on the slideshow above 😡
It's the home, and it's teledentistry. It is possible if you can take a selfie and WhatsApp your friends, why not your dentist, hygienist, therapist, or oral health educator?
Never had the terms and conditions been more required! The idea is for a debate and then a change.
We have debated water fluoridation for at least 40 years, and we know the impact on children. These children will keep you busy for the rest of your career.
From the vast majority of the public point of view, a dental practice that provides most procedures well and affordable is adequate for their needs. I would argue that a GDP is of more value to society and should be rewarded accordingly. It's unfair of an expert to criticise work that isn't to the optimum standard of a specialist rather than those achievable within the current system. The NHS. How many have referred to non-existent NHS specialists in RCT or perio? Most referrals finish with one NHS specialist, the oral surgeon. No wonder masses want to leave the profession. Ultimately it's a win/win for the specialist dentist. A lose/lose for the patient and their GDP. Any new system should not support the illusion of what is achievable in a new system, and the profession needs to set guidelines on what is a good service.
If any treatment is not maintained correctly, we know ultimately it will fail. Prevention works.
It's how we can make prevention a clinical and economic win/win for the dentist and their client.
The final slide I missed out on the slideshow above 😡
It's the home, and it's teledentistry. It is possible if you can take a selfie and WhatsApp your friends, why not your dentist, hygienist, therapist, or oral health educator?
Never had the terms and conditions been more required! The idea is for a debate and then a change.
We have debated water fluoridation for at least 40 years, and we know the impact on children. These children will keep you busy for the rest of your career.
|
|
|
The video on the left used AI to translate into Spanish, as I was still working as a dentist at the time. The one on the right is in English and explains how we as a profession may be excluding the public from our general care.