Aipedia: Dentists

Using AI chatbots for dental letters and complaints

Aipedia, by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-27

Dental professionals can use generative AI to draft letters and complaint responses, provided no identifiable patient data goes into public tools and every word is checked. A confident but wrong letter, or an unplanned admission, can turn a complaint into a claim.

Part of: AI in Dentists

In short

Generative AI chatbots are used in practices to draft treatment letters, estimates, referral letters and replies to complaints. GDC standard 4.2 means identifiable patient information should not be pasted into public tools. Principle 5 requires a prompt, constructive written response to complaints, setting out findings and offering an apology where appropriate. AI drafts can invent facts, misstate costs or concede liability in wording you would not choose. Indemnity arrangements usually expect early advice on complaints that might become claims. Patients may also use AI to write complaints, which can be longer and may cite rules that do not apply.

How practices use generative AI for correspondence

Practice managers and clinicians use generative AI chatbots to tidy up treatment letters, explain options in plain English, draft estimates, write referral letters and prepare first drafts of complaint responses. The appeal is obvious: complaint replies are time-consuming and emotionally difficult to write, and the tools produce calm, well-structured text quickly. The problems come from what goes into the tool and what comes out of it.

The duties that apply

Confidentiality: under the Standards for the Dental Team, 4.2 requires you to protect confidentiality and use information only for the purpose given, and 4.5 to keep it secure. Pasting a patient's name, history or radiograph findings into a public chatbot is hard to reconcile with either.
Complaints: Principle 5 requires a prompt and constructive response (5.3). The guidance says to respond in writing setting out findings and practical solutions (5.3.10), offer an apology and a practical solution where appropriate (5.3.8), and avoid reacting defensively (5.2.1).
Honesty: standard 1.3 requires honesty and integrity, so a letter must reflect what actually happened, not a plausible version generated by a tool.
Costs: standard 2.4 requires clear information about costs, so AI-drafted estimates must match the agreed plan.

What can go wrong

Illustrative scenario: a practice manager pastes a patient's complaint, with name and treatment details, into a public chatbot and asks for a reply. The draft is polite and fluent, but it states that the crown "was not fitted to the expected standard" and promises a full refund, neither of which the dentist had agreed. It also describes a follow-up appointment that never took place. The letter is sent, the patient treats it as an admission, and the indemnifier was never told about the complaint.

Other problems include invented clinical details, wrong fees in estimates, generic apologies that inflame a patient, and letters that quote GDC guidance incorrectly.

AI-written complaints from patients

Patients may use AI to write complaints, and a medical defence organisation has reported that AI-written complaints are rising in medicine. These can be long, formal and full of references to standards, sometimes ones that do not exist or do not apply. Respond to the substance: identify the actual concerns, check them against the records, and answer them clearly. Do not assume a legalistic tone means a claim is coming, but do not ignore the possibility either. Our guide to AI-generated complaints in medicine looks at the same trend.

How indemnity usually responds

A complaint is not a claim, but many claims start as complaints. Dental indemnity arrangements usually expect you to seek advice early where a complaint may lead to a claim and not to admit liability or offer compensation without agreement, subject to the terms. An apology is encouraged by the GDC and is not the same as admitting legal liability, but AI drafts can blur that line. A data protection complaint from pasting patient information into a public tool may fall outside clinical indemnity, because one defence organisation's published position excludes data breaches. See data breach cover within PI and AI hallucination liability.

Practical controls

Never paste identifiable patient data into a public AI tool; use approved systems or anonymise fully.
Check every fact, date, fee and clinical detail against the record.
Remove any wording that concedes fault or promises compensation unless that has been agreed.
Contact your indemnifier before replying to a complaint that might become a claim.
Make sure the final letter reads as your own and is signed by a named person.

How Apex helps

Apex arranges indemnity for dentists. A broker reviews how your arrangements treat complaints handled with AI drafting and data incidents involving public AI tools.

Sources

Frequently asked

Can I use a chatbot to draft a complaint response?

Yes, as a drafting aid, if you keep identifiable patient information out of public tools and check every statement against the records. Remove any wording that admits fault or offers money without advice, and make sure the response meets GDC Principle 5.

Is an apology an admission of liability?

An apology is encouraged under GDC guidance 5.3.8 and is not in itself an admission of legal liability. AI drafts sometimes add statements that the care was substandard, which goes further. Take advice from your indemnifier if a complaint might become a claim.

How should I respond to a complaint written by AI?

Treat it like any other complaint. Identify the real concerns, check them against the records and respond promptly and constructively. If it cites rules or standards that do not apply, explain the position politely rather than ignoring the point.

Can AI draft treatment estimates?

It can help with layout and plain wording, but the items and fees must come from the plan you agreed with the patient and your current fee list. GDC standard 2.4 requires clear information about costs, and a wrong estimate generated by a tool is still the practice's estimate.

Check your indemnity covers how you use AI

Tell us about your practice and the work you do. A broker will review how your current cover treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.

Start an indemnity quote Request a callback

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.