The GDC is ‘Shifting the Balance’ and it may affect your standing Leave a comment
Note: This article was originally published in our March 2017 edition.
All of you who are registered, as you should be, will have received the latest information from the GDC on their intention to modernise and update the way they handle the information flow to the respective registrants, with the intention of ensuring the reduction in complaints and improving patient safety. In simple terms the old system was, to say the least, both inadequate and inefficient, and not fit for purpose. In the words of the authors of the latest paper:
“We recognise that it is an antiquated system, designed for an era in which the relationship between patients and professionals was very different. Reforms of public services stretching back more than a quarter of a century have, rightly, put the public in the driving seat, whilst developments in technology have equipped and encouraged the public to demand increasingly high standards and to complain when those standards are not met.”
Most of you will never need to worry about a Fitness to Practice procedure driven by the patient, but it is essential that the powers that be at the GDC understand the role of the dental technician and ensure an understanding of the processes in day-to-day restorative procedures. My own experience leads me to believe the Fitness to Practice procedure is greatly flawed when it comes to technicians and I also feel that measures to ensure the patient’s ability to trace the source and content of restorations are not being actively encouraged because, by doing so, we may be interfering with the practice’s ability to make a profit. I am, of course, talking about the Statement of Manufacture, designed to record essential information about the patient’s restoration, its origin, what it is and who made it. It establishes a paper trail upon which the patient should be able to discover the design, material content and the technical manufacturer. Clearly if you are importing your laboratory work from Asia, whether directly or through a front man, and not declaring that fact then the Statement will either not be present or indeed be a false statement.
Most of us are aware of examples of this, and some are complicit in the activity by assuming the ‘front man’ position, acting as forwarding agents or indeed pretending to be manufacturing within the U.K. but in fact are sending overseas to the Asian source. The statement of manufacture, which we are all required to provide with the restoration, was intended to ensure traceability and evidence that the appliance was appropriate and constructed from acceptable materials. Undoubtedly the problem for those who would choose not to comply with the requirements of the restoration is the risk of discovery if the statement of manufacture were to be used in the patient’s interest. While I am not suggesting that overseas construction is in itself flawed, without a statement of origin it cannot be checked. The statement should be signed by a ‘competent person’, presumably a qualified technician with knowledge and understanding of the manufacturing process! Unfortunately this area is really not clear. It is very difficult to get a definition from the GDC of what a ‘competent person’ means. Who really knows or checks if the chap at the front desk signs it, or perhaps his secretary?
What has become clear is the importance of the statement seems to have been overlooked. Most technicians found it a nuisance when it was first brought in, but it’ significance for traceability for the patient is essential. My information is that it is not being taught at undergraduate level in the many dental schools, which seems to be a serious omission, and it would seem that some of the dental schools are not offering the statement to their own patients, which is illegal.
As dental technicians it is essential that we are registered with the GDC in order to work legally within the U.K. Despite this there are many who have chosen not to register but continue to work. They also continue to be sent work by dentists who are then working illegally. How can the GDC check this? They are required by law to ensure the work for the patient is constructed according to required regulations. If they are using an unregistered laboratory they are not receiving a legitimate statement of manufacture.
In recent times there have been several prosecutions of technicians working illegally, but the dentist that supported those illegal manufacturers were not mentioned, or as far as is known, not investigated. That is obviously a very stupid application of the regulations. The illegal laboratory could not exist if the dentist did not, illegally, send work to them.
The GDC is asking for input in order to make the regulations more suitable for the modern era. This is your chance to have some influence on the application of the regulations for the future. I have printed the contact details below, which can be used to put forward your own opinions and ideas for change. Apart from the Statement of Manufacture, you may have reservations about process workers, which greatly undermine the whole integrity and standing of registering technicians. You may want to express dissatisfaction with the fees or the CPD requirements or other aspects with which you do not agree. This is your chance to contact the GDC directly online and have your say:
Provide comments through the online form at www.gdc-uk.org
Email shiftingthebalance@gdc-uk.org
Use the hashtag #shiftingthebalance
