Scenario Task Exercise in Dental Records and Human Identification

Introduction

Forensic odontologists working in the UK routinely face complex situations where technical knowledge alone is insufficient. Decisions often involve ethical judgement, procedural compliance, and professional responsibility, particularly when dealing with human identification through dental records and radiographs.

This Knowledge Providing Task places learners in realistic “What Would You Do?” workplace scenarios that mirror the pressures and constraints of forensic practice. Learners are required to decide how they would act when faced with conflicting evidence, incomplete records, time pressure, legal constraints, or ethical challenges.

The purpose of this task is to develop learners’ ability to:

• Apply forensic odontology techniques responsibly
• Evaluate reliability and risk in identification decisions
• Act within UK legal and regulatory boundaries
• Maintain defensible documentation under scrutiny
• Demonstrate professional integrity at Level 7 practice

Professional Practice Context

You are acting as a forensic odontologist instructed by UK police forces, coroners, or disaster response authorities. Your decisions may directly affect:

• Formal identification of deceased individuals
• Criminal investigations
• Coroner determinations
• Court proceedings
• Public and family confidence in forensic outcomes

Your actions must comply with:

• Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021
• Forensic Science Regulator’s Codes of Practice and Conduct
• Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
• Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR)
• Coroners and Justice Act 2009
• Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013
• Data Protection Act 2018 (UK GDPR)
• GDC Standards for the Dental Team

Scenario 1: Incomplete Ante-Mortem Dental Records

Situation

You are examining post-mortem dental remains recovered from a suspected homicide scene. The remains show multiple restorations and previous endodontic treatment. Police provide ante-mortem dental records from an NHS practice; however:

• Charting is incomplete
• Radiographs are outdated
• Several restorations are recorded vaguely

Police investigators indicate that dental identification is urgently required to progress the investigation.

Ethical and Procedural Dilemma

• The dental features partially match the ante-mortem records
• There are several unexplained discrepancies
• Investigators are under pressure to confirm identity

What Would You Do?

Learners must consider:

• Whether the available records are sufficient for reliable identification
• How to classify the identification outcome (e.g. possible, probable, insufficient)
• How to communicate uncertainty to police without obstructing the investigation
• How to document discrepancies under CPIA requirements
• When to recommend alternative identification methods

Scenario 2: Conflicting Dental and DNA Evidence

Situation

In a mass fatality incident (transport-related), dental identification suggests a strong match between post-mortem remains and a missing person’s dental records. However:

• DNA analysis later indicates a different individual
• Dental similarities are explainable due to common treatments
• Families are awaiting confirmation

Ethical and Professional Dilemma

• Dental evidence supports one conclusion
• DNA evidence contradicts it
• Emotional pressure from authorities and families is increasing

What Would You Do?

Learners must decide:

• How to reassess dental findings objectively
• Whether to revise or withdraw an initial dental opinion
• How to document revised conclusions transparently
• How UK professional standards address conflicting evidence
• How to communicate changes without damaging professional credibility

Scenario 3: Pressure to Overstate Certainty

Situation

A coroner requests clarification on whether dental identification is “definitive.” The available evidence includes:

• Multiple concordant dental features
• One unexplained discrepancy
• Moderate-quality ante-mortem radiographs

The coroner indicates that a definitive identification would allow faster case closure.

Ethical and Legal Dilemma

• Professional standards discourage overstatement
• Legal proceedings require clarity
• Pressure exists to simplify conclusions

What Would You Do?

Learners should address:

• How to express certainty appropriately under CrimPR
• How to explain limitations without undermining evidence
• How professional integrity is maintained under pressure
• How documentation should reflect balanced judgement

Scenario 4: Data Protection and Record Handling

Situation

You are provided with ante-mortem dental records via unsecured email from a private dental practice. The records include full patient identifiers and radiographs.

Procedural and Legal Dilemma

• Records are needed urgently for identification
• Data transfer does not comply with UK GDPR
• Refusing records may delay identification

What Would You Do?

Learners must consider:

• Immediate actions to ensure data security
• Whether records can be used temporarily
• How to document data protection concerns
• How UK GDPR influences forensic workflows
• Professional responsibilities when data is mishandled by others

Scenario 5: Discovery of Errors After Report Submission

Situation

After submitting a forensic dental identification report to police and the coroner, you discover a minor charting error that does not change the overall conclusion but affects one comparison detail.

Professional Integrity Dilemma

• Error is unlikely to affect outcome
• Report has already been disclosed
• Correction may draw scrutiny

What Would You Do?

Learners must decide:

• Whether and how to disclose the error
• How to issue corrections under CPIA
• How transparency protects professional standing
• How errors should be recorded in audit trails

Competency Focus and Practice Alignment

This task assesses learners’ ability to:

• Make defensible identification decisions under uncertainty
• Balance investigative needs with professional ethics
• Apply UK forensic law in real-time decision-making
• Maintain documentation integrity
• Demonstrate Level 7 autonomy and accountability

Learner Task

Learners are required to:

• Respond to all scenarios
• Clearly explain what action they would take and why
• Reference relevant UK laws, regulations, and professional standards
• Demonstrate ethical reasoning and procedural competence
• Write from the perspective of a practicing forensic odontologist

Submission Guidelines

• Format: Structured scenario-based professional response
• Indicative Length: 3,000–4,000 words
• Writing Style: Objective, practice-focused, reflective
• Legislation: UK only
• Assessment Emphasis:
  • Decision-making quality
  • Ethical and legal compliance
  • Reliability evaluation
  • Documentation awareness