Sanaz Bastani-Boshehri
Introduction
Sanaz Bastani-Boshehri is a former UK dental nurse whose name was erased from the General Dental Council (GDC) register on 19 December 2025, after a Professional Conduct Committee found that, as practice manager at a dental practice, she had belittled and shouted at colleagues, threatened staff who had complained about her, and dishonestly blamed a colleague for a mug she had smashed herself. The committee found her fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct, directed erasure and imposed an immediate order of suspension. Bastani-Boshehri did not attend the hearing and was not represented; she confirmed to the GDC by email that she would not attend. Her case was heard jointly with that of a second registrant, her daughter, a trainee dental nurse, who attended and was represented.
Background Information
Bastani-Boshehri was registered with the GDC as a dental care professional, registration number 261949. At all relevant times she was practice manager at “Practice A”, the anonymised practice where the events took place; the determination does not name it, but the evidence shows it operated under Bupa, whose regional operations director and inspection hygienist gave evidence alongside a CQC National Enforcement Manager. The case concerned events in 2020, and the charges spanned two broad areas: cross-infection control failures, and behaviour towards employed staff and staff supplied by a recruitment agency.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings against Sanaz Bastani-Boshehri were made by a GDC Professional Conduct Committee on the balance of probabilities. They are regulator findings, not criminal convictions, and no criminal allegation is recorded on this page.
The committee announced its findings of fact on 18 July 2025. It found not proved the charge that on or around 14 October 2020 she instructed Registrant 2 to remove used personal protective equipment from a bin for reuse during patient appointments, there being no first-hand evidence of any such instruction. It did find proved that she failed to undertake any adequate risk assessment before requiring staff to clean out the practice’s clinical waste bin — reception staff, in uniform, used a snow shovel, without protective equipment — putting staff and/or patients at risk of harm.
The bulk of the proved charges concerned her treatment of colleagues. The committee found she told a dentist that a dental nurse “is trouble when she works with you, beside I want her gone”, and said of a nurse who had complained about her that she would impose Saturday-morning and late-evening shifts that, lacking childcare, would force her to leave. It found she spoke to Witness D “like I was stupid” at the reception desk in front of patients, shouted at a receptionist while she was on the phone, and told staff not to talk to Witness D “because she’s stupid and doesn’t understand it”. It found she said she “wants rid” of a hygienist and banned bookings with her, and that she shouted at and intimidated staff during a Bupa inspection on 21 October 2020, leaving some in tears and afraid to speak to the inspector. In a telephone call with the director of the practice’s recruitment agency, the committee found, she screamed and shouted and said of a member of agency staff that he “needs to keep his fucking mouth shut and mind his own fucking business”, asked “who the fucking hell does he think he is, if he isn’t happy then he can bloody well leave”, said “how dare you tell me how to do my job, who do you think you are?” and “they are all lying and making shit up”.
The committee further found that she intentionally smashed a receptionist’s personal mug, threw it into the bin without consulting her, and then told other staff that Witness D had smashed it. That final act it found both misleading and — applying the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos — dishonest, since she knew Witness D had not done so; she had been seen laughing about the incident and admitted the smashing to Witness D soon afterwards. The conduct as a whole was found inappropriate and unprofessional.
Public Reaction and Consequences
No public or media reaction to the case is recorded in the determination, so the consequences that matter are the committee’s. At stage two it found the facts proved amounted to misconduct: a pattern of serious misconduct that “breached fundamental principles of conduct”, with dishonesty of particular gravity as a breach of “a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely the inherent requirement to act with honesty and integrity”. It found impairment on public protection and public interest grounds, noting no insight or remediation and a risk of repetition; her behaviour indicated, in the committee’s words, “harmful deep-seated personality or professional attitudinal problems”. Weighing aggravating factors — dishonesty, premeditated and sustained misconduct, attempts to cover up wrongdoing, breach of trust and lack of insight — against the single mitigating factor of an unblemished record, it concluded her behaviour was “so egregious that it was fundamentally incompatible with being a dental professional” and directed erasure.
Current Status
Bastani-Boshehri is erased from the GDC register. The findings of fact were announced on 18 July 2025; the hearing resumed on 17 December 2025, and on 19 December 2025 the Professional Conduct Committee made the order to erase her and ordered that her registration be suspended immediately. Unless she appeals, the erasure takes effect 28 days from deemed service of the decision; if she appeals, the immediate suspension remains in place until the appeal is resolved. No appeal is recorded on the published pages. Erasure means she may no longer work as a registered dental care professional in the United Kingdom.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The erasure ends Bastani-Boshehri’s career as a dental nurse in the United Kingdom, and as the practice manager whose conduct generated the case. Removal from the register is permanent in practical terms: restoration could be sought only through the GDC’s processes, and the committee’s findings — no insight, no acknowledgement of the impact of her conduct on colleagues, misconduct over a protracted period — mark the distance between her position and any return. The record is otherwise silent about her life beyond the register, so the measurable impact is the loss of registration itself.