At The GDC - The Song Remains The Same
- Details
- Published: Friday, 19 September 2025 09:20
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 1341
The GDC frequently talk about trust. Their much trumpeted Corporate Strategy for 2026 to 2028 includes the lofty ambition to deal with a problem they took over a decade to even acknowledge: “The strategy also focuses on the current climate of fear within dentistry, with research showing dental professionals‘ perceptions of the GDC decline sharply after qualification.”
Indeed, the GDC’s own research has consistently demonstrated that the longer dental professionals are exposed to the GDC, the more they mistrust it. Whatever the Corporate Strategy may say, a recent posting on the GDPUK forum confirms that the Regulator is stuck in a rut. It continues to use the very tactics that have helped it gain such a poor reputation amongst those that know it best.
The experience of GDPUK contributor Mark Speight, as he dealt with the consequences of serious illness, showcased some vintage examples from the GDC playbook of professional fouls.
Firstly, what can best be described as the “Attention scum!” approach to communications. A registrant with an unblemished record applies to leave the register on health grounds. In its reply the GDC points out that there is still time for them to receive complaints and start Fitness to Practice proceedings against him.
Next came the GDC’s “computer says no” response to his request that they show discretion in the matter of his registration fee, since he will only be on for a short period and not practising, it is solely due to the requirements of the NHS long term sick pay arrangements.
The justification given was the GDC version of “The dog ate my homework,” better known as the 1984 Dentists Act. Somewhere in the Act there must be a paragraph that says the GDC can cite it as a reason not to do anything that they would prefer not to. The classic example of its misuse was the GDC’s steadfast insistence that the Act forbade them from taking the annual registration fee in instalments - right up to the moment they decided that they would take it in instalments.
Mr Speight asked the board members if they felt this was equitable. Or at least he tried to. After a while it was made clear in no uncertain terms, that his email would not be forwarded to them.
And finally the GDC’s tried and tested way of dealing with difficult enquiries. The organisation that sometimes feels as if it been gaslighting registrants since gas was the main means of illumination, simply ignored his emails.
The portrait of Incoming GDC Chair Dr Helen Phillips on its website at the time of her appointment was captioned: “Experienced leader brings exciting vision for trusted, collaborative regulation.”
The GDC demonstrating a little trust and collaboration with its registrants would certainly be novel, but it is the very least that both the profession, and the public whom they serve, deserve.
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report
My comments