• Print
• Email

Details

Published: Monday, 29 October 2012 14:21

Written by Tony Jacobs

Hits: 5089

Alix Furness had two questions:

What is being done for the 100 new graduates with no FD post? It has cost £250,000 to train each of them and now they can't work in the NHS and without experience will have difficulty getting a job in private practice. I'm having difficulty comprehending their predicament.
What about the high need patients having difficulty accessing treatment since 2006. I'm horrified at the devastated mouths being seen by my FDs. It seems to be a never ending stream of new patients who have been rejected elsewhere as uneconomic to treat?

This is workforce/employment issue and is not an area for which we have any responsibility. The GDC has and will continue to respond to Government consultations linked to the regulation of healthcare workers.

Jennifer Pinder asked a number of questions:

• Please explain how going down to 12 members all of whom are appointed will be of benefit to regulation?
• How can you get a decent spread of experience within the profession with such small numbers, say 6 lay members , 2 DCPs, 4 dentists?. How could such a small group make the major decisions on the professions regulation?
• I was elected in 1984 , when there were only 7 elected members , and it was felt that it needed to be 14 , and there was a special election for 7 extra members . The rest were dental school deans, plus the 4 CDOs , plus a dental 'auxiliary ' We are going backwards in this as well as everything else which the DH touches.

I feel that one of the biggest advantages of a reduction in size of the Council will be a streamlining of the decision-making process and making us more agile. There is also some scope for costs savings although these may not be so significant, depending on the adjustments that are necessary e.g. extra meetings, to make a smaller-sized Council work well. I also believe that the benefits to be achieved from moving to a smaller Council depend to a large extent on how the move is implemented. It is clear to me that we need to have some continuity of the Council membership and we need to avoid re-designing all our processes. One of my most important tasks over the next year is to ensure that we have a smooth transition to the new Council so that we do not jeopardise our important programme of the changes that we are making.

 
With regards your comments on expertise and experience:
While the Council will be smaller this does not mean that we will rely totally on the Council for expertise. We will seek the opinions of experts in the relevant fields and also consult widely.
We have many examples of where we have done this over the past two years, for example, the new pre-registration curricula, the CPD review, Direct Access and our new draft standards for dental professionals.
Finally, Dental professionals sit on FTP panels, Investigating Committees, education inspections, registration appeals and so on. We have also recently introduced early clinical input into our FTP process through a partnership with NCAS – the National Clinical Assessment Service.

Paul Isaacs asked:

Can the profession trust the GDC not to make a dogs breakfast out of revalidation?

Yes, I am content that good progress is being made in developing a process of revalidation that is “right touch” and focussed on risk. We have a programme of work underway to develop a scheme of revalidation for the purpose of providing assurance of ongoing fitness to practise. The detail of this can be found on our website in the revalidation programme initiation document.
A range of research, stakeholder engagement across the dental professions and industry and policy development is taking place as part of this and we have been clear that we want to hear from dental professionals about our emerging proposals via our This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. email address and a range of other channels. We are committed to developing a proportionate, workable and cost-effective model of revalidation.
Our review of our mandatory requirements of continuing professional development is firmly underway and we are about to launch a public consultation on our proposals for the future. These will emphasise quality of CPD, directly linked to the needs of the individual dental professional and in support of practice in accordance with the GDC’s Standards. An enhanced approach to CPD will be a core step towards a fuller range of policies and procedures to enable the GDC to assure the public of the continuing assurance of fitness to practise of dental professionals.
We are pleased that the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE), that regulates the regulators, has acknowledged our CPD review in its most recent Annual Review of the GDC.

The GDC is regulated by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) our overall activity is reported on annually and they also take an in depth audit of our Fitness to Practice function. All our activities are scrutinised closely and if we fail in any area we are expected ta address any problems within a set time frame.

Andrew Adey asked:

Who will be the real regulators of dentistry? The GDC or the CQC? Who will take the lead in persecuting real (or perceived) breaches? One, the other, or BOTH?

The GDC has a clear role in the regulation of individual members of the dental team, while the CQC regulates service providers and premises. This maybe someone who is not a registrant. Any breaches of the standards of either regulator are dealt with by each body. However, the CQC can, and does, share information with the GDC about breaches that it detects that are relevant to the GDC. We also have input from the police, the Independent Safeguarding Authority and NHS Counter Fraud Service.

---

You need to be logged in to leave comments.

×

Report

ReportClose