Latest Blog Post

As sad as I am I continue my research and over all interest into regulatory matters in UK dentistry. Gathering information from here and there and wherever I can.

I was interested to see that two directors of the GDC are providing a question and answer session in Manchester in November, not the first time they have done this in what appears to be a ‘charm offensive’ by the GDC in order to bring the profession ‘back on side’.

I have long held the belief that there are only two action points which will effectively change regulation in dentistry for the better and gather the confidence of the profession back under the wing of the regulator. These are as follows:

1. First the experimentation and then the implementation of local resolutions and local resolution panels.

I believe we are long past the time where experimentation and local resolution should be undertaken both to reduce the emotional and physiological impact of complaints on both the claimant and the registrant.

I see no evidence of this and it seems “the council has no appetite for this at present”.

2. The second is the culture of the organization as set by the man at the top.

It’s worth repeating again in these pages that I have never met William Moyes and I am indifferent on a personal level either way. I still fail to understand the rational behind his appointment (remember it was an appointment, not an election).

On a wing this weekend I decided to do a little bit of research into other regulatory bodies and found that the HCPC’s (a professional regulatory body) chairman was Elaine Buckley. Mrs Buckley qualified as a physiotherapist in 1981 and worked extensively in physiotherapy according to her biography. Physiotherapists make up one of the largest groups that the HCPC regulates.

For the vets, professor Steven May provides for the governing body which is the RCVS (the college of veterinary surgeons) as you can guess, he is in fact a vet.

The medics recently appointed Professor Terence Stephenson who is a specialist in paediatric medicine and paediatric emergencies. He is the second chair of the GMC to be appointed not elected, but he certainly is still a doctor.

Why the change of policy for dentists against the rest of the regulatory bodies?

More importantly though who appoints and what accountability do these appointees have?

Perhaps I’ve missed something dramatic and in fact that is often the case, so I would be grateful if anyone who reads this who has more information on this process could contact me. I am very keen to understand who made the decision that the chairman of the dentistry regulation is someone whom stated at an early part of their tenure stated he was “a relatively new come to both the dental sector and professional regulation” soon after his appointment as he spoke at the Malcolm Penyal memorial lecture in 2014.

On a side note also I searched for the transcript of this lecture online this weekend only to find that it appears to have been blocked by Google under the European privacy laws?

I’m sure this must be a coincidence.

It was lucky I saved a copy some time ago that I found on my laptop.

The culture of any organization is defined by the person at the top and the person at the top of regulation in dentistry has no experience in clinical matters. I find it staggering that anybody who appointed that person would not appreciate that experience in clinical matters are essential as they did when they appointed the chair of the HCPC, the RCVS and the GMC.

It seems that we do not see our chairman of the GDC at public events very often, he does not attend the BDA conference and on the publish list of invites on the GDC website he seems to decline almost everything. He sends out his directors for the ‘charm offensive’ listed above.

It is my belief that this approach to regulation in dentistry will not do and we must as a group continue to work hard towards convincing the shadowy people above the level of the GDC that it is essential that we have a clinician in charge.

Blog post number: 1425