Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — substantive hearing
Struck off the register
The regulator’s term: erasure
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Hannah Susan White, dental nurse (General Dental Council 284976).
Decision date: 18 March 2026 · Hearing started 16 March 2026 and ended 18 March 2026
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided that Hannah Susan White's fitness to practise was impaired by misconduct and ordered her erasure from the dental care professionals register. The Professional Conduct Committee found that Miss White had submitted whitening tray prescriptions in her own name without proper authorisation, taken cash totalling £668 and teeth whitening gel from her employer without permission, and provided gel to colleagues outside her scope of practice. All charges were found proved. The Committee found no evidence of genuine insight or remorse, and determined that only erasure adequately protected the public.
Charges
On or around 25 August 2023 and 1 November 2023, Miss White submitted whitening tray prescriptions in respect of herself without appropriate prescription. In 2022, 2023 and August-September 2023, she offered or provided teeth whitening gel owned by the practice to colleagues without authorisation or prescription. On or around 1 November 2023 she took an envelope containing £168 and on another date took £500 of the practice's money without authorisation. On or around 1 November 2023 she took four syringes of teeth whitening gel from a secure cupboard without authorisation. Her conduct in providing whitening gel was outside her scope of practice. Her actions were found to be dishonest. All charges found proved.
Findings
The Professional Conduct Committee found all charges proved. Miss White was absent and unrepresented. The Committee found her conduct fell far short of the standards expected of a dental nurse: it was deliberate, serious, persistent, an abuse of her position as head nurse, and involved both financial theft and acting outside her scope of practice. No evidence of genuine insight, remorse or remediation was before the Committee. Fitness to practise was found impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. The Committee determined that erasure was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction, given the serious dishonesty, abuse of trust, and persistent lack of insight. An immediate suspension order was imposed pending the appeal period.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Previous good character; evidence of limited apology.
Aggravating factors
Actual harm or risk of harm to colleagues and the practice; premeditated misconduct; financial gain by the registrant; abuse of trust and abuse of professional position; misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time; lack of insight.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.