Dental Professionals Hearings Service determination — substantive hearing
Suspended from practice — 1 month
The regulator’s term: suspension
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.
Concerning Ishaq Arif Mahmood, dentist (General Dental Council 227438).
Decision date: 1 April 2026 · Hearing started 23 March 2026 and ended 1 April 2026
This sanction period has elapsed.
In plain English
The GDC tribunal decided to suspend Ishaq Arif Mahmood, a dentist, for 28 days. The Professional Conduct Committee found that Mr Mahmood had amended Patient A's clinical records retrospectively without indicating they had been changed, and that this conduct was misleading and dishonest. The Committee found that while he had also failed to discuss all the risks of the orthodontic treatment, this did not reach the level of misconduct. His fitness to practise was found impaired on public interest grounds, and a 28-day suspension was imposed to uphold professional standards.
Charges
Mr Mahmood faced charges relating to the care of Patient A between November 2021 and December 2022. He was charged with: failing to discuss the full risks and benefits of orthodontic treatment; failing to provide all treatment options; failing to maintain contemporaneous records; amending records retrospectively; failing to indicate records had been retrospectively amended; failing to obtain informed consent; and that his conduct was misleading and dishonest. Charges 1(a), 1(b), 1(e) and 1(f) were withdrawn. Charges 2, 3 and 4 were admitted. Charges 1(c), 1(d), 5, 6(a) and 6(b) were determined at the factual inquiry.
Findings
The Professional Conduct Committee found the following charges proved: failure to discuss full risks and benefits (1c); failure to obtain informed consent (5); failure to maintain contemporaneous records (2 - admitted); retrospective amendment of records (3 - admitted); failure to indicate records were retrospectively amended (4 - admitted); misleading conduct (6a); and dishonest conduct (6b). Charges 1(d) (failure to provide all treatment options) was not proved. The Committee found that the conduct at 1c and 5 did not amount to misconduct (falling below but not far below standard). Dishonest and misleading conduct relating to records did amount to misconduct. Fitness was impaired on public interest grounds only. A 28-day suspension was imposed with no immediate order.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
No previous fitness to practise history; steps taken to demonstrate insight into and remediation of misconduct; good conduct since the events; the dishonest conduct was isolated and appeared to be out of character; conduct did not result in or was not motivated by financial gain; extensive reflection and remediation undertaken; remorse and apology expressed.
Aggravating factors
The dishonest conduct occurred in connection with an impending patient complaint.
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.