Consultations and responses
There are currently no open consultations.
Changes to the timescales for the Rule 4 process: Consultation outcome report
Principles of Specialist listings: Consultation outcome report
GDC corporate strategy 2020–2022: Consultation outcome report
In May 2019, the General Dental Council (GDC) published a consultation on its proposed strategy for 2020-2022. The strategy described the organisation’s vision, values and strategic aims, and provided high-level information on the expenditure plans to support the achievement of those aims over the period.
Consulting on the new strategy marks a change in approach for the GDC. This new approach is set out in the GDC’s fee setting policy, which was consulted on in 2018, and came into effect from January 2019. It explains that we will consult every three years on the high-level objectives and associated expenditure plans that will underpin the annual retention fee (ARF).
The draft strategy set out five strategic aims, which were developed to describe the GDC’s priorities within its statutory remit. In order to deliver the necessary outcomes, the strategy also identified objectives designed to support the achievement of those aims.
The consultation, which opened on 8 May 2019 and closed on 30 July 2019, invited views on the objectives we had identified to support the achievement of the strategic aims, as well as the expenditure plans associated with them.
Education processes: consultation outcome report
Clear and certain: A new framework for fee-setting: consultation outcome report
GDC responses to consultations
Response to Department of Health & Social Care consultation - Appropriate clinical negligence cover
The consultation closed on 28 February 2019.
Response to Department of Health & Social Care consultation - Promoting professionalism, reforming regulation
The consultation closed on 23 January 2018.
For more information, visit the consultation page on gov.uk.
Shaping the direction of lifelong learning for dental professionals
11 July 2019
3 October 2019
This discussion document presents ideas for the future development of lifelong learning and builds on previously published proposals included in Shifting the balance. The ideas for discussion draw on our Review of the literature on CPD, January 2019, and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, at two workshops, held in April 2019.
Can you help shape the direction of lifelong learning for dental professionals?
We have opened a conversation about how dental professionals can take increasing ownership of meeting and maintaining high professional standards and quality patient care. This discussion document invites ideas, comments and views on the future development of lifelong learning, or continuing professional development, in dentistry.
The aim is to ensure that lifelong learning in dentistry continues to evolve to meet the expectations of the public, patients and dental professionals, in a way that is proportionate to risk, and flexible on how professionals go about reaching their development goals.
The discussion document is presented in three parts:
- Part 1: A future model for lifelong learning
- Part 2: CPD practices
- Part 3: Informing CPD choices.
The deadline for responses is 3 October. Please provide your response using the online survey. You do not need to complete the survey all at once, to save and complete at another time, please select the 'finish later' option and follow the instructions.
Changes to the timescales for the Rule 4 process
A consultation on a proposed pilot of changes to timescales for the Rule 4 process, part of the overall Fitness to Practise process, which include providing registrants and their representatives, under certain circumstances, the opportunity to request to extend the period for the preparation of their observations at the Rule 4 stage, to ensure the best possible evidence can be provided.
Please respond to this consultation using the online survey.
Corporate Strategy 2020-2022: Working with the dental team for public safety and confidence
- To operate a regulatory system which protects patients and is fair to registrants, while being cost-effective and proportionate; which begins with education, supports career-long learning, promotes high standards of care and professional conduct and is developed in the light of emerging evidence and experience.
- To work with the professions and our partners to ensure that patients and the public are able to raise concerns with the agency best placed to resolve them effectively and without unnecessary delay.
- To use evidence, research and evaluation, to develop, deliver and embed a cost-effective and right-touch model for enforcement action.
- To maintain and develop the regulatory framework.
- To continue to develop an outcome-focused, high-performing and sustainable organisation.
Clear and certain: A new framework for fee-setting
Supporting certainty for registrants and the workability of the regulatory framework: we need to make sure that decisions on the allocation of costs do not lead to undesirable outcomes in the form of unacceptably high or variable costs for some groups of registrants. For example, in determining whether cross subsidy is necessary or desirable we will need to consider the impact on the volatility of fee levels (i.e. how much small changes in workload would cause the fee to change). This is likely to be of particular relevance to small registrant groups, where distribution of costs among small numbers of registrants has the potential to give rise to significant levels of volatility (and therefore uncertainty) and/or prohibitively high fees.
Consultation on Interim orders guidance for the Interim Orders Committee (IOC)
- it is necessary for public protection
- it is in the wider public interest
- it is in the interests of the dental professional
- the test that will be applied to determine whether to impose and interim order
- factors the IOC should consider in deciding whether to apply interim suspension or interim conditions of practice
- the length of time an order will be imposed
- the type of information that should be provided about the IOC’s decisions in a particular case
We welcomed the valuable input and views of patients, professionals and our partners regarding the new Guidance.
Consultation on the General Dental Council's Fitness to Practise: Case observations process
We are consulting on a proposed change to our fitness to practise operations. The change is minor in nature, and concerns the process by which we invite registrants to respond to fitness to practise allegations made against them.
Consultation on the General Dental Council's Standards for Speciality Education
This consultation proposes changes to the standards used to quality assure education providers of speciality training.
Consultation on the General Dental Council's education processes
We are proposing changes to the way we quality assure education and training leading to registration for dental professionals. We are seeking to use our resources more efficiently, supporting education and training providers to drive improvements in dental education.
Consultation on the principles of specialist listing
This consultation invites comment on fundamental issues related to the system of specialist listing:
- revised purposes for specialist listing, setting out what the GDC expects listed specialties to fulfil, and criteria by which the GDC will determine which disciplines of dentistry should be listed
- principles for the addition and removal of specialist lists
- processes for maintaining accreditation on specialist lists.
If adopted by the GDC, following consultation, the revised principles and criteria would form the basis for the GDC to make policy decisions on specialist listing in the future.
Removal of registrants’ full addresses from the online register
Following the Council’s decision to remove registrants’ full addresses from our public register, the GDC conducted a consultation on this decision and the information which should be available on the public register of dental professionals.
Consequently, the current Council has revisited arguments both for and against the publication of registrants’ full addresses. It concluded that, while the GDC should still require registrants to provide an address they can be contacted on, the risk to registrants posed by publishing this address outweighed the marginal additional public protection benefits of doing so.