A recent case saw the suspension of a registrant. But by the time of the hearing, the dentist has already made amends. Peter Ingle reports
As the UK regulator for dental professionals, the GDC has a duty to protect the public. A key part of this will be delivered by their Fitness to Practice (FtP) processes. A recent case raises questions about the timeliness of the GDC’s public protection and the relative weight given to protecting the public from harm, as opposed to maintaining what is considered an appropriate image for the profession.
The dentist concerned had been qualified since the 1980s and had a single previous encounter with the GDC in 2007. The case related to the wording of an advertisement, and was closed with an unpublished written warning.
Years later, it came to light that the dentist had used the names of patients, staff, and his partner to write prescriptions for the class C drug diazepam. Although he had been doing this for eight years and was responsible for 60% of all prescriptions for diazepam in his health board area over that time, it would appear that authorities and local pharmacists had no suspicions that anything might be amiss. His fraud only came to light following a routine review of prescribing, which finally bought his activity to the authorities’ attention.
As a result, the practitioner received a suspended jail sentence for fraud in 2023. The GDC had been made aware of the investigation which led to this in 2022, when the dentist reported himself to the GDC.
In mitigation, the dentist’s barrister explained that he suffered from irritable bowel syndrome made worse by anxiety he experienced when speaking publically, and had been too embarrassed to see his GP. He admitted fraud and was fined £10,000 as well as receiving an 8-month sentence suspended for a year.
It is well known that there are issues with delays in the FtP process. In this case, the registrant had been identified and made a full admission to the health board involved, and notified the GDC in 2022. As a result, the Interim Orders Committee (IOC) placed conditions on his practice at the beginning of September 2022. The dentist remained on the register under these conditions, which were most recently reviewed and rolled on in early May 2026. The dentist complied with the conditions and had undergone a drugs test during this period which had confirmed that he was no longer using diazepam.
The dentist had got in touch with all but one of the patients whose identities he had used and apologised unreservedly for what he had done, with a single patient having moved away and been uncontactable. Two of the patients had gone on to offer character testimonials for the dentist and none had taken issue with him.
After more than three and a half years of working under the IOC conditions the case reached its Professional Conduct Committee hearing in mid May 2026. It was only at the conclusion of this hearing that the registrant was suspended from the register, for a year.
This raises questions about the GDC delivery of its core duties. If the registrant presented a serious danger to the public then surely he should have been suspended in 2022? This could have been achieved via an interim order. The GDC frequently use these where the allegations are considered to be serious enough to represent an immediate risk to the public, were they later upheld.
There is a duty on registrants to maintain the professions image, which comes under GDC Standard 9. This requires registrants to ‘Make sure your personal behaviour maintains patients’ confidence in you and the dental profession.’
By the time that the suspension was imposed, the registrant’s failings had been in the public domain for four years. They had been able to remain on the register and in that time met all of the conditions imposed, no doubt under considerable supervision. There is absolutely no suggestion that they had repeated the actions that had led to their conviction, and they had demonstrated much insight into their earlier failings. At the May 2026 hearing the committee said it was ‘satisfied that the risk of repetition was low in this case’ as the dentist had ‘come a long way towards developing full insight’.
By most measurements their behaviour in 2026 would have been much more likely to maintain the public’s confidence that it would have in late 2022, when they originally had conditions imposed, but were not suspended.
There have been questions about the GDC’s apparently inconsistent approach in matters of dishonesty. Often the GDC will make the case at hearings that dishonesty is not redeemable, and for this reason push for the most severe sanctions. There is the example of findings of dishonesty regarding NHS charges in cases where dentists have operated ‘top ups’ on NHS fees which have not come at any cost to the NHS, and have historically resulted in erasure.
There are two further factors to consider. The registrant practiced in an area that is not oversupplied with dentists. At one time it might have been argued that this was not an issue for the GDC. However the GDC has now very much involved itself in the Department of Health’s push to improve access. Keeping a safe experienced practitioner at work is a tried and tested way of improving access, that in this case the GDC has blocked.
The case would also seem to confirm that healthcare regulation does not take place on a level playing field. The suspended dentist continues in his role as director of a skin clinic in the same road in which he practiced dentistry.