key: cord-0013920-gzegfsls authors: nan title: Erratum date: 2017-12-15 journal: Br Dent J DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.1047 sha: 7fc33943518088cafd6a15bb6f53a8a554f92c26 doc_id: 13920 cord_uid: gzegfsls nan You ask, 'could the GDC strike a dentist off for not following current thinking due to sticking to their contract of outdated philosophy? ' I totally agree with Len's response here. The GDC will not as far as I am aware consider the UDA remuneration of a practice when looking at clinical probity in the care of a patient. Standard 1.7 Put patients' interests before your own or those of any colleague, organisation or business. As far as I am aware the GDS contract does not say anything about sticking to an outdated philosophy and we should not forget that current thinking is changing. Certainly the MID approach is being taught more in dental schools, so for new graduates (and certainly those on postgraduate courses like the AMID) there is no such thing as outdated philosophy; it is evolving evidence based care. Again Len's response is spot on and hopefully the DH will take on board findings from the prototypes for a substantive contract. Standard 7.1.1 Find out about current best practice in the fields in which you work. Provide a good standard of care based on available up-to-date evidence and reliable guidance. The use of DCPs, novel ways of remunerating dental staff, etc may well help practices to better implement an MID approach (some ideas are taught on the AMID programme). However, we do need to look at some research that actually investigates the issues that practices face in implementing an MID care pathway for patients. This research needs to be practice-based so that its takes into consideration the views of all stakeholders including the dental team, commissioners, practice owners, etc. This is essential so that we can determine issues and the best ways to overcome these so that MID may be readily implemented at the coal face. From a personal point this is now firmly on the agenda with my research proposal, and those of others, being commissioned with the NIHR but others as well). The other aspect to remember is that patients deserve to be involved in the clinical decision making of their care and as such options (including their pros and cons) need to be discussed with them. Here Len is totally correct that this and any deviation from accepted standards needs to be recorded. Sir, I must take the opportunity to strongly disagree with M. J. Trenouth's comment about FDI Dental Notation. 1 This system is quite clear to understand, easy to use, universal and does not demand any mental gymnastics whatsoever for sharp minds. I do not believe the problem resides with the system but it is more a case of the craftsman. The use of the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) in a National Health Service general dental practice as part of an oral health assessment Selection criteria for dental radiography Department of Health/BASCD. Delivering better oral health -An evidence-based toolkit for prevention Caries control in health service practice Dental notation: Mental gymnastics The following digital object identifier (DOI) number associated with this article was incorrect in the PDF version of the article in the original issue as published on the 12 February 2016. The correct DOI is 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.94. We apologise for any inconvenience caused by this error.