A complete guide for dentists and dental care professionals: how the General Dental Council handles concerns through Initial Assessment, Assessment, case examiners and Practice Committee hearings, how the Standards for the Dental Team are applied, and what insight and remediation evidence actually shows a panel.
Choose one to see what it means and where to focus.
Select your situation to see where to start.
The GDC investigates where there are concerns that shortcomings in a dental professional's conduct or competence are so great that they put patients at serious risk or seriously damage public confidence in dentistry, and takes action where it is needed to manage that risk.
The GDC defines being fit to practise as having the appropriate skills, knowledge, character and health to practise safely and effectively. It is explicit that this is not only about clinical performance or health: it also covers actions that affect public confidence in dental professionals, including matters outside professional practice such as criminal acts.
The threshold is deliberately high. Most complaints about dental care are better resolved locally or through NHS or private complaints routes. In 2025 the GDC received 1,766 concerns; of every 100 cases, on average only 15 reached a Practice Committee hearing, and 18 dental professionals were removed from the register, about 0.01% of all registrants.
Source: GDC Fitness to Practise Statistical Report 2025, published June 2026.
19% of new concerns closed at Initial Assessment in 2025.
The GDC regulates dentists and six groups of dental care professionals (DCPs). Anyone practising dentistry must be registered; practising without registration is illegal practice, which the GDC investigates separately and can prosecute.
Subject to the Standards for the Dental Team and GDC fitness to practise. Must work within their scope of practice.
Covered by separate student fitness to practise guidance and their education provider's processes, not the registrant FTP process.
Someone who is not registered carrying out dentistry, such as illegal tooth whitening. Handled as a criminal matter, not fitness to practise.
Establishes the GDC, the registers, the grounds for FTP, the committees and the sanctions available.
Govern procedure at each stage, from assessment to hearings and reviews.
The standards of conduct, performance and ethics that govern dental professionals.
How decisions are made. The Practice Committee guidance was updated in December 2025.
Interim Orders, Professional Conduct, Professional Performance and Health Committees.
A process in active reform. On 26 March 2026 the GDC launched a 12-week consultation, closing 18 June 2026, on revised guidance for case examiners and its undertakings bank. Proposals include further guidance on sexual misconduct, discrimination and harassment, standardising the publication period for warnings at 12 months, and an updated undertakings bank. The GDC is also consulting on guidance for its Initial Assessment and Assessment stages. Check the current position before relying on any procedural detail.
Every GDC concern is ultimately measured against the Standards for the Dental Team. They are built around nine principles, each with detailed standards beneath it. Choose a principle to see the concerns it most often generates.
Pick a principle number.
Select a principle.
Mapping shows the standards involved. It does not by itself establish misconduct or impairment.
The GDC itself lists the kinds of concern it investigates: serious or repeated mistakes in clinical care, such as in diagnosis or procedures; failure to examine a patient properly, obtain informed consent, keep satisfactory records or respond reasonably to a patient's needs; not having professional indemnity; cross-infection issues; serious breaches of confidentiality; indications of a criminal offence such as fraud, theft or dishonesty; and health conditions that significantly affect the ability to treat patients safely.
Repeated errors, inadequate diagnosis or treatment planning, poor technical outcomes, inadequate assessment. Deficient professional performance is judged across a body of work and goes to the Professional Performance Committee if referred. Competence remediation
Failing to explain options, risks, benefits and costs, treating beyond what the patient agreed, or not documenting consent. Consent concerns are among the most common in dentistry and are often linked to record-keeping.
Incomplete, inaccurate or missing records, inadequate clinical justification, or retrospective alteration. Altering records after a concern arises can turn a clinical issue into a probity issue. Documentation remediation
Serious breaches of patient confidentiality, inappropriate access to records, and social media. Confidentiality remediation
The GDC explicitly lists cross-infection issues, such as using dirty clinical equipment. Decontamination, sterilisation and protocol failures can create direct patient risk.
Prescribing errors, inappropriate antibiotic or controlled drug prescribing, and poor documentation. The GDC publishes guidance on prescribing medicines. Medication remediation
Misleading patients or records, NHS or insurance fraud, charging irregularities, false declarations, and concealment. The GDC explicitly lists fraud, theft and dishonesty. Probity remediation
Inappropriate behaviour, boundary breaches and sexual misconduct. The GDC's 2026 proposals add further guidance emphasising the seriousness of sexual misconduct allegations. Misconduct remediation
Conduct towards colleagues or patients that breaches principle 6 or 9. Also the subject of additional guidance proposed in 2026.
Practising without appropriate indemnity or insurance is a specific GDC concern, because it leaves patients without redress if something goes wrong.
Police notifications of cautions or convictions can reach the GDC directly. The GDC's Practice Committee guidance is clear that FTP proceedings about convictions are not intended to punish a second time; the question is what the conviction means for fitness to practise.
A health condition that significantly affects the ability to treat patients safely. Health cases go to the Health Committee if referred and focus on safe practice and support.
Actions outside dentistry that affect public confidence, such as some criminal acts, can be fitness to practise matters.
The GDC describes its process in four stages. Interim orders can be considered at any point where there is an immediate risk.
Concerns reach the GDC from patients and relatives, colleagues and employers, other healthcare professionals and dental organisations, whistleblowers, other regulators, and the police, for example through notification of a caution or conviction. The GDC can also act on information from other sources.
The GDC decides whether the information raises a potential fitness to practise concern, whether there is enough information, and whether further action is proportionate. Concerns that do not meet the threshold are closed or redirected, for example to a local complaints route.
The GDC gathers the information it needs: patient records, radiographs, treatment plans, witness accounts, employer information and, where needed, expert clinical opinion. It identifies the nature of the concern and whether there is an allegation of impaired fitness to practise to put to case examiners. The registrant is given the chance to respond.
Investigation does not mean an allegation has been proved.
Records, treatment plans, radiographs, prescriptions, clinical notes.
Emails, policies, protocols, complaints, correspondence.
Patients, colleagues, practice staff.
An independent clinical opinion on the standard of care.
Reflection linked to the concern and to changed practice.
Targeted learning, audit, supervision reports.
From employers aware of the concerns.
Workload, staffing, systems, supervision, patient complexity.
Workload, staffing, resources, system failures and patient complexity can all be relevant to how serious a concern is and what is needed to address it. The strongest responses set context out honestly while still taking ownership of the registrant's own part.
Case examiners sit at a critical point in the GDC's process. They work in pairs, one registered dental professional and one lay person, consider allegations of impaired fitness to practise, and decide whether a case should proceed to a Practice Committee hearing. They do not decide whether allegations are proved: that belongs to the Practice Committee.
Depending on the evidence, case examiners can close a case, give advice, issue a warning, agree undertakings, or refer the case to a Practice Committee. A decision to close a case can in some circumstances be reviewed; the GDC publishes information on how to request a review of a case examiners' decision.
A referral means the case examiners consider that the case needs to be decided by a Practice Committee. It is a procedural decision about whether a case should progress, not a finding of guilt, not a finding that facts are proved and not a finding of impairment.
Six separate steps. Only a Practice Committee decides the last three.
Undertakings are commitments a registrant agrees to, such as training, supervision or restrictions on certain treatments, which let a case conclude without a hearing. The GDC's 2026 consultation stresses their distinct purpose: they must be proportionate and able to address the specific deficiencies through sufficient remediation. Compliance is monitored, and a breach can lead to referral.
Referred cases are heard by one of three Practice Committees, depending on the nature of the concern.
Allegations of misconduct and convictions, including dishonesty and behaviour.
Allegations that a registrant's professional performance is deficient, amounting to impaired fitness to practise.
Where a health condition is affecting the ability to practise safely.
The GDC's own decision-making guide sets out the sequence. Each stage is a distinct question.
On the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence heard.
Looking at risk now: insight, remediation, recurrence, public protection and confidence.
The least restrictive outcome that is appropriate and proportionate.
A past breach does not automatically mean current impairment. The committee considers what has happened since: whether the concern has been addressed, whether insight has been shown, how likely it is to recur, and whether a finding is still needed to protect the public, maintain confidence in the dental professions and uphold standards. Hearing support coordinators are now available to registrants and witnesses.
Insight is about what a registrant has genuinely understood, and whether it shows in how they now practise. In a GDC case, credible insight usually covers:
Disputing facts does not automatically prevent insight. A registrant can contest what happened while showing they understand why the alleged conduct would matter. Take advice before making statements about disputed facts.
| Reflection | Insight |
|---|---|
| Looks at the event | Understands its significance |
| Identifies learning | Accepts professional responsibility |
| Considers alternatives | Explains future behavioural change |
| May describe feelings | Shows understanding of risk |
| Describes learning | Shows how learning affects practice |
The GDC's research on remediation, published in 2025, found reflective practice and tailored opportunities for improvement crucial to meaningful remediation, with targeted interventions addressing specific deficiencies.
Remediation can include targeted education, clinical retraining, supervised practice, competency assessment, reflection, audit, mentoring, workplace learning, policy review and behaviour change. Remediation is not simply completing a course.
| Evidence | What it can demonstrate |
|---|---|
| Relevant course | Knowledge gained |
| Assessment result | Understanding tested |
| Reflective account | Learning and insight |
| Clinical audit | Application in practice |
| Supervisor or mentor report | Observed improvement |
| Competency assessment | Demonstrated capability |
| Workplace evidence | Practice sustained over time |
| Action plan | Future safeguards |
| Repeat audit | Sustained improvement: often the strongest single piece |
A relevant course may form part of a broader remediation package, depending on the concern. It does not by itself prove insight, competence, behaviour change, clinical safety or current fitness to practise. What makes it count is the link to the concern, evidence of understanding, and evidence of how it changed practice, for example through a before-and-after records audit.
Enhanced CPD is ongoing development every registrant must complete. A CPD certificate shows participation. Remediation addresses a specific concern and needs relevance, reflection, application and evidence. The same course can serve both, but only if its role in remediation is shown.
Honesty is central to principle 9. Concerns include misleading records, fraudulent claims, charging, concealment and false declarations. A generic reflective course does not resolve a dishonesty concern: panels look for genuine understanding of why honesty matters to patient trust, and evidence of honest conduct over time.
Probity remediationKnowledge gaps, technical skill, diagnosis, treatment planning and judgement. Strong remediation usually combines targeted clinical learning, supervised practice or mentoring, and audit of outcomes, reviewed again later.
Competence remediationPrinciple 3 requires valid consent: options, risks, benefits, alternatives and costs explained and understood, and documented. Remediation often pairs consent learning with a records audit showing consent now captured properly.
Professionalism remediationAccurate, contemporaneous and complete records, with clinical justification. Corrections must be transparent. A before-and-after audit is one of the clearest ways to evidence change.
Documentation remediationDecontamination, sterilisation and cross-infection protocols. Evidence of changed practice includes updated protocols, training records for the team and audit.
Competence remediationAntibiotic prescribing, contraindications, documentation and checking. Remediation typically includes prescribing learning, a prescribing audit and review.
Medication remediationBefore a hearing, case examiners can close a case, give advice, issue a warning or agree undertakings. If a Practice Committee finds fitness to practise impaired, the GDC lists the options as: no action, a reprimand, conditions on registration, suspension, or removal from the register.
The case concludes without a sanction.
A formal, published sanction. Practice is not restricted.
Targeted restrictions or requirements such as supervision, training, assessment or reporting. Not necessarily punitive: they are often the route by which remediation is completed under oversight. Reviewed and monitored for compliance.
Temporarily prevents practice. Usually reviewed, when the committee considers what has changed.
Removal from the register, where no lesser sanction would be sufficient. Restoration is a separate process, normally not possible for five years.
The Interim Orders Committee can impose interim suspension or conditions while a case is investigated, if needed to protect the public. In 2025 the GDC reported an average of 19 working days from referral to a first Interim Orders Committee hearing. After a Practice Committee imposes suspension, conditions or erasure, it can also impose an immediate order so that restrictions apply during the appeal period. Neither interim nor immediate orders are a finding that allegations are proved.
The GDC's 2025 averages: 78 working weeks for the assessment stage, 36 working weeks from assessment decision to final case examiner decision, and 57 working weeks from case examiner decision to a first Practice Committee hearing. The streamlined single-patient route is much quicker. Registrants can appeal Practice Committee decisions to the High Court or Court of Session.
| GDC | Employer or practice |
|---|---|
| Regulator | Employer, practice owner or performer list |
| Registration | Employment or contract |
| Public protection | Workplace and contractual concerns |
| Standards for the Dental Team | Employment policies |
| Can affect registration | Can affect employment |
Different purpose, decision-makers and framework. The GDC's guidance says convictions are not dealt with to punish twice; the question is fitness to practise.
Handled by the practice, NHS routes or the Dental Complaints Service for private care. Not fitness to practise unless there is a serious risk.
FTP asks what the evidence shows. Remediation asks what has been done to address the concern. Insight asks what has been understood. Evidence shows the change.
Structured learning may form part of a wider remediation plan where it is relevant to the concern. Completing a course does not by itself establish insight, competence, remediation or fitness to practise, and cannot guarantee a GDC decision.
Structured CPD · 1.5 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 1.5 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 1.5 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 2 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 2 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 1.5 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 2 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 1.5 CPD ptsStructured CPD · 3 CPD ptsDepending on the concern, Confidentiality, Safe Prescribing or Duty of Candour may also be relevant. See all GDC remediation courses or all courses.
Carefully, twice.
Exactly, and what is not.
Securely.
It can create a probity concern.
Which of the nine principles apply.
While memory is fresh.
Records, witnesses, context.
Indemnity provider, BDA or a solicitor.
From the root cause.
Targeted, not generic.
Audit, supervision, feedback.
Ask for more time early if needed.
This page is educational and does not replace advice from a suitably qualified solicitor, regulatory specialist or your indemnity provider. Take advice appropriate to your circumstances before making admissions, submitting evidence or responding to allegations.
A simplified educational model. Routes vary with the circumstances.
The GDC's process for investigating concerns that a dental professional's conduct, competence or health puts patients at serious risk or seriously damages public confidence in dentistry, and for taking action where needed.
Serious or repeated clinical mistakes, failures in examination, consent or records, lack of indemnity, cross-infection issues, serious confidentiality breaches, criminal matters such as fraud or dishonesty, and health conditions affecting safe practice.
No. Many complaints are resolved locally or through NHS or private complaints routes. 19% of new concerns were closed at Initial Assessment in 2025, and only around 15 in every 100 cases reached a hearing.
The GDC decides whether the information raises a potential fitness to practise concern and whether further action is proportionate. Concerns not meeting the threshold are closed or redirected.
The GDC gathers records, witness accounts, employer information and sometimes expert evidence, identifies whether there is an allegation of impaired fitness to practise, and invites your response.
In 2025 the assessment stage averaged 78 working weeks, and case examiner decision to first hearing a further 57 working weeks. The streamlined single-patient route now takes around 16 weeks at the early stage.
Pairs of decision-makers, one registered dental professional and one lay person, who consider allegations and decide whether a case should proceed to a Practice Committee.
That the case examiners consider the case needs to be decided by a Practice Committee. It is not a finding of guilt, proved facts or impairment.
They may close it, give advice or issue a warning. Some closure decisions can be reviewed in certain circumstances.
Agreed commitments, such as training, supervision or restrictions, that let a case conclude without a hearing. They must be proportionate and able to address the specific deficiencies.
A statutory committee that decides referred cases: the Professional Conduct, Professional Performance or Health Committee, depending on the concern.
The committee decides in three stages: whether the facts are proved, whether fitness to practise is currently impaired and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.
After a finding of impairment: no action, a reprimand, conditions on registration, suspension or erasure from the register.
Targeted restrictions or requirements, such as supervision, training, assessment or reporting, usually for up to three years and monitored for compliance.
A formal, published sanction that marks the seriousness of a concern without restricting practice.
You cannot practise for the period of the order, up to 12 months, which is usually reviewed before it ends.
Removal from the register, the most severe sanction. Restoration is a separate process that is normally not possible for five years.
Yes. It can be highly relevant to current impairment and sanction, and to whether undertakings are suitable. It cannot guarantee an outcome.
A relevant course can form part of a remediation package. On its own it shows learning, not changed practice.
No. Insight is understanding shown in how you now practise, supported by reflection and evidence from others.
Understanding what happened, your responsibility, the harm or risk, what should have been done differently and the safeguards now in place.
What happened, why, your role, the impact, what you learned, what you have changed and how you know the change has worked, without identifying patients.
Potentially, by showing you understand why the alleged conduct would matter. Take advice before making statements about disputed facts.
No. The GDC investigates serious or repeated mistakes. A single error, properly handled and learned from, is often not a fitness to practise matter.
Employer and GDC processes are separate and can run in parallel. The outcome of one does not decide the other.
Yes. Convictions can be referred to the GDC, which considers what they mean for fitness to practise, not to punish a second time.
Only where a condition significantly affects the ability to treat patients safely. Health cases focus on safe practice and support.
The process continues without your input, and failing to engage can itself be relevant. Take advice and respond on time.
Yes. Your indemnity provider, the BDA or a specialist regulatory solicitor can advise. IRR Practice provides education, not legal advice.
No. IRR Practice is an independent education provider. It is not the GDC and does not make or influence regulatory decisions.
This guide is based on the GDC's published material. IRR Practice is independent; naming the GDC does not imply endorsement.
About this guide. Last reviewed September 2026. Next review March 2027, or sooner if GDC rules or guidance change. IRR Practice is an independent healthcare education provider. It is not the General Dental Council and does not make regulatory decisions.
Enhanced CPD, investigations, remediation and the Standards for the Dental Team.
Writes for IRR Practice on professional standards, fitness to practise, insight, reflection and remediation for UK healthcare professionals.
Last reviewed: September 2026