COVID-19 update

Our office is currently not open to visitors. We are responding to emails; however, due to the impact on our staffing resources, our response times will be affected.  From Monday 25 May 2020, we will also be operating a limited telephone service.  Our Scottish Welfare Fund review service is still available by telephone as normal.  Please read our information for customers and organisations

Decision Report 201701739

  • Case ref:
  • Date:
    July 2018
  • Body:
    East Dunbartonshire Health and Social Care Partnership
  • Sector:
    Health and Social Care
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    policy / administration


Ms C received treatment at a dental service run by the partnership and was unhappy that, for one instance of specific dental treatment, the partnership referred her treatment to the Practitioner Services Division (PSD) for approval. Ms C said that if she had been a patient at a high street dentist, she would not have needed the treatment referred.

We took independent advice from a dental adviser. We found that both high street dentists and the partnership's dental service were regulated in exactly the same way, including carrying out treatments in line with the Statement of Dental Remuneration (SDR). The SDR sets out the rules defining the types of filling, denture or other restoration, and what type of material can be used. It also defines the timing of treatment types and the costs of those treatments. Some types of material, or restoration, are not included in the SDR, and so require prior approval from PSD.

The treatment Ms C wanted was not included in the SDR and, therefore, the partnership had to apply to PSD for approval. This was not a policy of the parternship's making, but applies across Scotland. We concluded that the partnership acted reasonably in referring Ms C's treatment to PSD for approval, and we did not uphold her complaint.

Updated: December 2, 2018