The General Dental Council (GDC) has welcomed the government’s proposals for reform of healthcare professional regulation but is calling for greater flexibility and a faster pace of reform.
The regulator has repeatedly expressed frustration about legislation which is too detailed and inflexible to meet modern needs, and which undermines its ability to operate an effective and efficient regulatory system. The GDC supports the more responsive approach to regulation these proposals will bring about and recognises the need to ensure effective accountability.
However, the GDC is urging the government to be more ambitious in its approach. In some areas the proposals are still very detailed – such as the defined process for all regulators to follow in fitness to practise investigations – and this risks locking regulators into a system which may work today but doesn’t have the adaptability it needs to respond to the needs of tomorrow.
The regulator has also highlighted concerns over the timetable and pace of reform.
Chair of the GDC, Bill Moyes, said, “My biggest concern is the further delay to the reforms as a result of the government’s decision to review the number of healthcare professional regulators. We need more progress in reform, faster, and a clear timetable for delivery.”
The Dental Defence Union (DDU) says reform of the healthcare regulators should include giving the GDC powers to set up a separate and independent tribunal to decide whether dental professionals are fit to practise.
Responding to the government consultation on regulating professionals and protecting the public, the DDU said that there is much to applaud in the proposals aimed at modernising and streamlining fitness to practise procedures and that it offers an opportunity for the GDC to instigate widespread reforms of fitness to practise regulation.
John Makin, head of the DDU explained, “The welcome intention behind these proposals is to give healthcare regulators greater flexibility, particularly in the management of fitness to practise procedures. At the moment the GDC performs both the role of investigator and adjudicator of complaints. We believe the regulator should be given the powers to establish a separate, independent body, to decide whether a registrant is fit to practise, akin to how the GMC operates with the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS).
“This would help to ensure the GDC is at arm’s length from decisions about whether a dental professional is fit to practise, which would go some way to reassuring dental professionals about the objectivity of the process.
“In addition, unlike the GMC which does not ordinarily investigate complaints that date back more than five years, the GDC can do so. This means dental professionals can be subjected to fitness to practise proceedings for historic complaints at great human and financial cost. The government is suggesting that this five-year rule is scrapped for healthcare regulators like the GMC, which have this safeguard in place. Instead, we believe it is imperative that such safeguards are retained and expanded to include GDC cases.
“This is a great opportunity for the GDC to become a more responsive and flexible regulator. We hope the government and GDC seize the considerable opportunities presented in the consultation for much needed reform.”
Dental Protection has called on the government to make meaningful reform to the regulation of dental professionals, ensuring the nuances of the practice of dentistry are adequately accounted for in any reforms undertaken.
As well as granting the GDC discretion on when to investigate fitness to practise concerns, the dental defence organisation called for reforms to the 1984 Dentists Act as a matter of priority. Dental Protection is urging the Government to clarify the timetable for GDC legislative reform. Currently, only reform of the medical regulator has been confirmed to take effect by spring 2022.
Dental director at Dental Protection, Raj Rattan, said, “Dental Protection has long argued for reform to the regulation that underpins the GDC. Vital changes to the 1984 Dentists Act, which governs the GDC, are seriously overdue. Despite several amendments over the years, the act remains outdated, requiring the regulator to conduct some of its operations in ways that are not always in the best interests of patients or professionals.
“Much needed reform will enable the regulator to streamline its processes, improve efficiency, and reduce the number of investigations into less serious allegations, requiring the conclusion of investigations in a timely manner.
“Following this consultation, we would urge the government to clarify the timescales for passing secondary legislation to amend the Dentists Act.
“Dental Protection is particularly calling for reform to be prioritised in fitness to practise investigations, in order to reduce fear across the dental profession and increase confidence in the GDC. This includes giving the GDC discretion to decide whether and how to investigate a fitness to practise concern to avoid thousands of dental professionals going through an unnecessary investigation each year.
“We are also concerned at the proposal for the GDC to be provided with just two grounds for investigation – ‘lack of competence’ and ‘misconduct’, with the currently separate ground for action relating to ‘health’ removed from the legislation. Concerns relating to a dentist’s health would instead be investigated under ‘lack of competence’ grounds.
“At Dental Protection, we understand how stressful it is for dental professionals to be under investigation by the GDC and we believe that categorising those with health concerns as having a ‘lack of competence’ could exacerbate their health issues, and discourage registrants from seeking help earlier. We strongly believe health should be retained as a separate category.”