GDC responds to Dentistry.co.uk article

GDC

Jonathan Green, director of fitness to practise at the GDC, has responded to Ninian Peckitt’s article, The Untouchables

Jonathan Green, director of fitness to practise at the General Dental Council (GDC), responds to a Dentistry.co.uk article (read the original article here).

I wanted to write in response to The Untouchables.

Removal of a dental professional from the register is never a matter to be celebrated. Our role is to ensure that only suitably qualified professionals, with current expertise, who understand their obligations to patients and take them seriously, are permitted to practice dentistry. We know that the vast majority of the profession support us in that aim.

We work very hard to ensure that cases are fully and properly investigated, hearings are fair and decisions are proportionate. We are confident that we made the right decision to remove Professor Ninian Peckitt from the register for violent conduct towards a patient and for dishonesty, after already having been removed from the medical register by the General Medical Council. You can find the full account of the case. Professor Ninian Peckitt has since appealed the practice committee’s decision. The council will be opposing the appeal.

Changes

That is not to say that the system of professional regulation cannot be improved. Far from it. We are working very hard to make improvements to the fitness to practise process. We acknowledge that going through the statutory processes of fitness to practise – whatever the regulators might do to lighten the load for professionals within the existing system – can be adversarial, expensive and stressful. In that respect, going through fitness to process can sometimes feel like a punishment in itself regardless of whether there is actually a case to answer. We recognise that. That’s why we think it’s in all our interests to work together to find better ways of doing things.

Last year we received just over 3,000 complaints. A proportion could have been dealt with locally between the complainant and the dentist and/or practice rather than it appearing before a fitness to practise hearing. We are shortly coming to an end of an NHS England pilot that encourages local resolution where possible.

Important changes in legislation will allow us to introduce case examiners later this year. The consultation to agree undertakings closes on 14 March. This will streamline much of our fitness to practise process, which benefits both patients and the dental profession as we are able to make decisions – and as necessary, take action – much more quickly, helping individuals in the process to meet the required standards for the benefit of patients.

This is only the tip of the iceberg in much needed modernisation of the whole system of professional regulation.

Professional regulation

We need a complete rethink of the overall approach to regulation. We need to ask ourselves what – and importantly who – this form of regulation is for and what it is actually achieving in terms of outcomes for patients. We need to recast the balance between sanctions, incentives and learning so that the focus is on preventing harm, rather than focusing effort on punishment after harm occurs.

That is why we warmly welcome Under Secretary of State for Quality Ben Gummer’s intention to consult on the future of professional regulation and we will be making detailed proposals as part of that consultation.

We want to work with patients, dental professionals and our other stakeholders to develop our proposals.


You can read The Untouchables article from Ninian Peckitt here.

6 Comments

  1. 1

    I am not subject to a damning report by the Professional Standards Authority and comments by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath that he is surprised that the whole GDC Council has not resigned.

    I am not subject to a damning editorial by Peter Ward in the BDJ that the GDC is not fit for purpose.

    • 2

      Dear Prof. Ninian Peckitt,

      I think you should take this to High Court. Prof. Lamley did the same and GDC lost the case.
      I strongly advice you to do the same and ask for compensation for everything you have been passing trough. You should raise a case Mr.Jonathan Green, as director of FTP.

      You will have the support of lots of dentists. With a fundraising, the required money to pay to a good lawyer will be reached.

  2. 3

    As a friend and professional colleague of Professor Peckitt for over thirty years, I can only express utter horror that such a highly qualified, expert, successful, ethical and caring clinician should even be considered for removal by the G.D.C. At no point has his conduct been proved to be anything other than totally professional and evidence supporting his case appears to have gone “missing”. Could the real reason be that he has proved the G.D.C. is not fit for purpose and it is they who should be removed and replaced?

  3. 4

    Prof and Bob.
    Genuine clinicians ‘would not micturate upon the GDC if they were in flames’. We are all with you. The GDC is despised and regarded with utter contempt by real dentists.

  4. 5

    But Mr Green, what have you been doing for the last five years (other than raising the ARF despite judicial review, and installing microwave ovens in swim pole Street)? Why are you still accepting cases that could have been resolved locally? Why are cases still taking 18 months and £78k to resolve? Why can’t Mr Moyes see that case loads increase when (unlike the GDC) you advertise for them?

  5. 6

    Dear Prof. Ninian Peckitt,

    I think you should take this to High Court. Prof. Lamley did the same and GDC lost the case.
    I strongly advice you to do the same and ask for compensation for everything you have been passing trough. You should raise a case Mr.Jonathan Green, as director of FTP.

    You will have the support of lots of dentists. With a fundraising, the required money to pay to a good lawyer will be reached.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You Might Also Like