The GDC consultation on its new standards document might be taking a conciliatory tone, but Peter Ingle asks whether dentists need to be even more on their guard
At the beginning of June 2026 GDPUK published a somewhat tongue in cheek piece about the GDCs proposed new standards document.
The intention is that Standards for the Dental Team, the present registrant rule book, will be replaced by a new Framework for Professionalism. The GDC’s proposals are presently out for consultation, closing on 31 August. This represents a final opportunity to influence a document on which all registrants will be judged. Not having read it, or not understanding it, will be no defence in front of a fitness-to-practice committee – so there is your Bank Holiday weekend sorted.
The outgoing document was often referred to as ‘the silver book’ on account of the colour its cover. Its replacement will mainly live online, and those that bother to look into the proposals may feel that ‘Schrodingers standards’ could be a suitable nickname for the new document.
To be clear, the GDC is not offering a philosophical critique of applying quantum mechanics to macroscopic objects, or highlighting the apparent absurdity of superposition at large scales. Nor is it in any way endorsing animal cruelty. It is however delivering a document that contains a great deal of ambiguity, particularly in the area of the new ‘supportive material’.
On the one hand, the GDC repeatedly insists that the fundamental standards expected of registrants are not changing. On the other, it has chosen to put a huge amount of time and effort into this project. The reasons given are that this will make the standards clearer, better understood, and allow registrants more room to exercise their professional judgement.
But Framework for Professionalism is not just the remastering of a familiar track. It represents more than the renumbering and change of format, and redesigned flowchart as the standards progress from overriding principles to more detailed material. There is the inclusion of supporting material, contained within the model framework for professionalism.
In the new standards, Principles of Professionalism, Professional Guidance, and Expectations, have statutory status, and are described as ‘the guidance as to the standards of conduct, performance and practice expected of dental professionals.’
Supporting material ‘supports and assist(s) interpretation of the statutory elements of the framework.’ A further explainer about its role adds that these materials are intended to ‘illustrate the GDC’s position on particular topics or areas of interest.’
The new standards are intended to be more responsive to changes in the outside world. One example where the GDC has had to play catch up would be its response to registrant’s activities on social media. The effects of recent progress in digital dentistry and the arrival of AI, will also need to be covered. Their statutory nature means that the three other strands of the standards will not be easy to alter, but the supporting material, will encompass a changing library of items that cover a wide range of issues both clinical and non-clinical, and can be regularly added to or amended.
This should immediately raise two questions. Firstly, how far will the supporting material go down the route of prescriptive content? And secondly, will deviation from the supporting materials offerings, be a fitness-to-practice issue? In crude terms, if the supporting material describes routine use of rubber dam for posterior composites, will non-use be added to FtP charge sheets? After all, it ‘illustrates the GDC’s position.’Anyone brushing such concerns aside might want to reflect on the struggle over local anaesthetic batch numbers.
At one of the recent webinars a participant asked if deviation from the supporting material might be used in FtP cases. One of the GDC presenters answered that they would not applied to FtP cases. However, they do not have any involvement in FtP and there is a history of previous promises leaving the GDC, along with the individuals that made them.
In regards to the standards as a whole, webinar participants were told that the standards’ relationship to FtP would be provided in more details, yet to come. Presumably, after the consultation has ended.
The consultation includes links to a mock-up of the framework. In the supporting material library, a piece on scope of practice is introduced with the comment that ‘they do not introduce new principles or guidance and will not be used as a basis of an allegation of impaired fitness to practise.’ What follows are a pair of interesting, fairly detailed, and relevant scenarios related to scope of practice. These are followed by some very general questions about scope that do not make much effort to pick up on the details provided. What is not offered are any firm steers on the best or even appropriate options.
It may be revealing that while the range and scope of supporting materials as defined is almost limitless, the few examples in the mock up, all contain little or no clinical content. There is evidence that the GDCs ambitions go further. The recent GDC website blog on the ‘Bonding boom’ from Shamir B. Mehta, lead clinical adviser, fitness to practise should offer few surprises to conscientious practitioners, and is the type of item that we can expect to find its way into the supporting materials library. But clinicians might ask themselves if they follow every single item in the checklists, on every case, and then write up in the record that they do?
The GDC cannot be accused of sleight of hand in its introduction of the new standards. There have been webinars, the offers of visits to interested groups, as well as periodic updates on the development process. While at earlier webinars the new standards were represented in many ways as a forgone conclusion, in the latest set the presenters prefaced their comments with remarks to the effect of ‘if the new standards are adopted,’ on more than one occasion. Seasoned GDC watchers may take this new-found humility with a pinch of salt.
Registrants could see the supporting material as a means to share ideas, or a means of closing down the application of professional judgement, which is ironic since it is something that the GDC say they want to encourage. How this plays out, will depend to a large extent on how the GDC apply these standards in the coming years.
At one of the webinars, the new framework was described by a member of the GDC team as aiming ‘to bring it (the standards) all together and make things easier to find.’ The GDC continually fails to pass the PSA standards for its FtP process, and has been a long time bottleneck for willing and eager overseas registrants’ wanting to practice in the UK. Surely it has better things to focus on than such a resource intensive rewrite, if that really is all that of this work is offering.
The GDC say that it is not necessary to respond to all of the questions, so it need not take long to complete. Participant information is not included beyond whether respondents are replying on an individual or organisations’ behalf.