Skip to main content

Can GPs refuse to treat dental abscesses?

I was asked by the professional magazine Pulse to discuss the question of whether GPs can refuse to treat dental abscesses.

A study published in 2016 reported that around 600,000 consultations annually with GPs are for dental problems. Reasons why people present to GPs with dental problems include the poor provision of NHS dental services in many parts of England and the £19.70 charge that some patients must pay for a dental consultation. If you decide that your patient may have a dental abscess, assuming there are no red flags (such as signs of spreading infection or sepsis) that would warrant an urgent referral for emergency hospital assessment, then the patient should be informed that they need to see a dentist. You should explain to the patient that a dentist is trained to treat dental abscesses but you are not. The dentist has the expertise and equipment needed to assess the patient, carry out suitable investigations (such as dental radiographs), and drain the abscess if this is required. The dentist can also treat any underlying problems, through procedures such as root canal treatment or a tooth extraction, to minimise the risk of recurrence of the abscess. You should also explain to the patient that issuing an antibiotic is an inadvisable course of action for GPs for someone with a suspected dental abscess as this won’t address the underlying problem; may mask symptoms and result in a worse long-term outcome for the patient; and will encourage the development of antimicrobial resistance. If the patient does not have a regular dentist, inform them they can call NHS 111 or use the NHS Choices website to find the location of local services for emergency dental treatment. It is NHS England and NHS commissioners, and not GPs, who are responsible for ensuring the population has access to adequate NHS dental services. This includes access to services for emergency dental treatment.

The published article can be read in Pulse, along with the views of two other doctors.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
Post a Comment
Read more