The reaction has ranged from the measured disapproval to downright anger. I have to say I wonder how much of the ire can be put down to bad timing. For those of you who didn’t see it, the advertisement was for the Dental Complaints Service. Given that the GDC’s mission statement is to protect patients, an advert for the service is, on the face of it, understandable. After all, no one wants patients to suffer any poor dentistry in silence, or have to accept treatment which is not up to an acceptable professional standard. In the GDC’s 2013 Annual Patient and Public Survey 27 per cent of those who complained or would complain did not know where to go. So it seems quite right and appropriate that the GDC spreads the word about the paths available to patients, and the Dental Complaints Service is a pretty good first port of call for unhappy patients.
It seems that a lot of the criticism the advert has received stems from a lack of understanding about what the Dental Complaints Service actually is. In last month’s issue we had an article (‘Calming troubled waters’) on the service and the work it does in resolving complaints. It works by way of arbitration and actually serves both patients and the profession. Over 95 per cent of cases are resolved quickly and successfully, meaning the ‘complaint’ goes no further and a lengthy GDC Fitness to Practise procedure is avoided. This is good for the profession (avoiding stress) and the GDC (FtP procedures accounted for 80 per cent its budget this year). Far from wasting money, advertising the DCS could prove to be an invaluable investment by the regulator. We have more reaction to the advert on pages 14–15. Though the principles of advertising the DCS can be debated, the timing of this placement is unquestionably ill-considered. It came shortly after the announcement of the proposed ARF increase (an increase the GDC is trying to justify because of the 110 per cent rise in complaints since 2010).
The proposed ARF increase for dentists is a staggering 64 per cent to £945. The amount itself, though significant, will probably not be financially restrictive so as to prevent many dentists from practising, but again it goes back to principles, and such an unprecedentedly high rise is, to most, unjustifiable. It is especially difficult to bear from a regulator that has received criticism from the Professional Standards Authority, and one which seems out of touch with the profession.
In last month’s issue I touched on Bill Moyes (GDC chair) discussing the dental market and him being happy with the idea of premium and budget options giving patients a choice. The problem with regulation of the dental profession is that there is no choice, no alternatives. Dentists have to be registered with the GDC to practise. So what are the options available? Whilst venting frustration on social media may prove therapeutic in the short term, it is essential that if you are unhappy with the proposed ARF rise you respond in the correct way and through the correct channel. Visit the GDC website and take part in the consultation!