GDC Fails PSA Check Again
- Details
- Published: Monday, 18 December 2023 09:43
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 1182
The GDC itself has a regulator, the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) who in their own words “protect the public by overseeing the regulation and registration of healthcare professionals".
One of their main activities is producing reviews of the various healthcare regulators’ performance. The PSA have now published their latest review of the GDC for 2022/23. In a report that could be used as the script for ‘Groundhog Day 2’ the GDC has once again failed to meet all 18 of the PSA Standards. The Council failed to meet one of the registration standards, nor did it meet the Standard for timeliness in Fitness to Practice (FTP). Both failures were because the GDC was in the PSA’s opinion “taking too long” to carry out these critical tasks.
The GDC failed to meet Standard 11 for registration due to the time taken to process applications for registration. The PSA said that: “The overall data on application timeliness this year remains concerning.” The PSA helpfully add that they will monitor the GDC’s progress.
In the case of International Registration, legislative changes to the routes to registration for international applicants had come into force during this review period. This was due to the route allowing overseas-trained dentists to apply as DCPs closing from 8 March 2023. There was a surge in in DCP applications ahead of the deadline. According to the GDC it has now recruited 35 additional registration team staff to deal with the backlog, but it will take time to clear it. Applicants with their life on hold as they wait for the GDC to catch up with itself, might wonder why the GDC was not better prepared for the entirely predictable increase in applications.
Last year, the GDC did not meet Standard 15 as it was taking too long to investigate fitness to practise cases. Despite this and the GDC’s presentation of its plan for improvement, the time taken to investigate cases had not significantly improved this year. The number of old open cases also remained relatively stable over the review period. According to the report; “The GDC has outlined actions to improve performance in this area, but there is so far limited evidence of the impact of these measures. Standard 15 is not met. We will continue to monitor the GDC’s progress.”
It was noted that more cases were being adjourned, with a rise in the GDC’s rate of adjournment of final fitness to practise cases in the review period. That the PSA was satisfied by the GDC’s explanation that most of these were planned adjournments, will no doubt come as a huge relief to registrants caught up in these added delays to an incredibly stressful process.
The report mentions that it was aware of, “reported negative experiences of its fitness to practise process, including the level of support provided for registrants and the tone of the GDC’s communication with registrants.” The PSA appeared content to leave investigation of this to the GDC saying, “It was appropriate for the GDC to carry out research to understand people’s experiences of its processes.” Yet again the PSA would, “continue to monitor the GDC’s work in this area.”
In a revealing follow up to the Williams case the report notes that: “In light of this decision, the GDC has now reviewed all fitness to practise decisions made since the introduction of the current NHS Contract Regulations where top-up fees were an issue, where charges of dishonesty relating to top-up fees were proved and the registrant erased. The GDC plans to publish a statement on its website regarding the review and its findings and is also liaising with the NHS on this issue.”
The GDC did not escape criticism in those Standards where it managed to meet the PSA’s minimum requirement. When it came to reporting its own performance: “The GDC is an outlier amongst health and social care regulators in terms of the material it publishes. In this review period, some stakeholders reported uncertainty about what the GDC’s Council is aware of. While this did not mean the Standard was not met, we expect regulators to be transparent about their activities, and there is room for the GDC to improve in this respect.”
At a somewhat basic level there were issues with the reliability of data provided by the GDC. Last year and the year before, there were: “some significant inaccuracies in the data we had received from the GDC.” In this review period there had been further minor occurrences of inaccurate data.
In the case of Specialist List Assessed Applications, the PSA received “mixed feedback from stakeholders on the GDC’s process.” Once again the PSA declared that it would continue to monitor this area.
It is difficult to know what to make of the complacent tone of the PSA review.
At a time when there is an acute access crisis, in no small part due to a severe shortage of dental team members, the GDC acts as a barrier to workforce enlargement.
The failures with FTP are inexcusable. Since its inception in 2013 the PSA has produced annual reports on the GDC. The GDC has never met all of the FTP Standards set by the PSA. Registrants might hope that after this long the PSA would be able to do more than “continue to monitor” the GDC. Perhaps when the GDC gets around to publishing its much delayed review on erasures following top-up cases, it will finally receive proper scrutiny.
PSA statement | General Dental Council performance review report (professionalstandards.org.uk)
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report