Kopila Burathoki
Introduction
Kopila Burathoki is a dental nurse who was erased from the register of the General Dental Council (GDC) in February 2024 after a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) found she had cheated on the qualifying examination for the National Examining Board for Dental Nurses (NEBDN) Diploma in Dental Nursing, then used the qualification obtained by that deception to gain admission to the register. Registered as a dental nurse (number 294842) on 11 May 2021, she had practised for roughly five months before the deception surfaced.
The hearing — an initial PCC under section 36P of the Dentists Act 1984 — sat remotely via Microsoft Teams on 12-13 February 2024, Burathoki present but unrepresented against the GDC’s counsel. At the outset she made full admissions to all of the charges, and the committee found every charge proved on the basis of those admissions.
Background Information
She took the two-part NEBDN online examination in November and December 2020 and passed both parts, applied for GDC registration in or around March 2021 relying on that qualification, and was admitted on 11 May 2021. Between 26 July and 5 October 2021 she worked as a dental nurse at her employer, identified in the determination only as Practice A.
The scheme came apart on 5 October 2021, when the Practice Principal — the Informant in the case — met her to discuss the allegations. She initially denied them, but an hour later reportedly telephoned the Practice Principal and admitted receiving unauthorised assistance via mobile phone from a person identified as Person A during her exam. She was reportedly apologetic, and Practice A suspended her employment.
The next day the Practice Principal informed the GDC that Burathoki and a colleague, Registrant B, had purportedly cheated on the exam, and contacted the NEBDN, whose investigation concluded there was ‘strong evidence’ of potential ‘suspicious behaviour’ from both women and a ‘high likelihood of cheating’.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. What follows are regulatory findings made on the balance of probabilities by a GDC Professional Conduct Committee — not criminal convictions, and erasure from the register is not a criminal record. The committee weighed no contested evidence: Burathoki, present but unrepresented, admitted all six charges at the outset; the committee heard no evidence that the admissions were made under duress and was satisfied she understood their basis and consequences.
The charges fell into three groups: first, that in or around November 2020 she communicated with Person A to obtain help answering the examination questions and provided answers based on that communication; second, that in or around March 2021 she applied for registration relying on the qualification obtained through that exam; third, that between 26 July and 5 October 2021 she worked as a dental nurse at Practice A. Dishonesty was alleged in respect of each group.
All were found proved on her admissions. On misconduct, the committee found her dishonest behaviour — cheating in the exam, then using the qualification gained by deception to obtain registration “to which you were not entitled” — serious departures from professional standards, breaching standards 1.3, 1.7 and 7.2 of the GDC’s Standards for the Dental Team (honesty and integrity, patients’ interests first, working within one’s competence). Misleading one’s regulator about the validity of an examination result, it concluded, is dishonesty of a particularly serious nature, showing a wilful disregard of the GDC’s regulatory systems and their protective purpose, and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
On impairment, the committee found patients had been placed at unwarranted risk of harm: as she had not legitimately passed the exam, the public could not be assured she possessed the skill and knowledge to practise safely. With no evidence she had reflected on the misconduct — rather than remediate her dishonest behaviour, she had apparently chosen to leave the profession — it concluded there was a high risk of repetition, and that public confidence would be severely undermined if impairment were not found.
Public Reaction and Consequences
Invited to address the committee on misconduct, impairment and sanction, Burathoki declined. The committee identified no mitigating factors, though it noted her early admissions and apology and her unblemished regulatory history. Aggravating factors were: dishonesty; premeditated misconduct requiring prior planning and coordination with Person A; financial gain, through the benefit of registration and employment; breach of trust; misconduct sustained over a period of time; blatant or wilful disregard of the GDC’s role and regulatory systems; and no evidence of insight.
Working upward through the sanctions, it found a reprimand inadequate. Conditions of practice were unworkable: none could address the attitudinal concerns, she apparently no longer wished to remain in the profession, and conditions would in effect have let her work without the proper qualification. Suspension was questioned as disproportionate: whatever chance a period with review gave her to retake the exam legitimately, the committee weighed the message that would send to practitioners who qualified honestly. Applying the guidance on behaviour fundamentally incompatible with being a dental professional — serious departures from standards, serious dishonesty, persistent lack of insight — it found all three applied, concluded her behaviour was “so egregious that it is fundamentally incompatible with being a dental professional”, and erased her name from the register.
Current Status
Burathoki is erased from the GDC register. The hearings service’s outcome summary records that on 13 February 2024 the Professional Conduct Committee made an order to erase her from the register and ordered that her registration be suspended immediately. The committee revoked the interim order of suspension and replaced it with an immediate order of suspension under section 30 of the Dentists Act 1984: unless she appeals, the erasure takes effect 28 days from deemed service of the decision; if she appeals, the suspension remains until it is resolved.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The erasure ends Burathoki’s registration as a dental nurse, and the qualification she obtained by deception can no longer be used to practise in the UK. The determination records her stated intent to leave the profession — advanced as a reason why lesser sanctions would serve no useful purpose — and no evidence of insight or remediation beyond an early admission and an apology. A colleague, Registrant B, was referred to the GDC over the same exam; the NEBDN’s ‘high likelihood of cheating’ finding covered both women. Unless she successfully appeals, the erasure is final.