Case type
GDC fitness to practise expert reports.
Independent opinion on whether a registrant’s care fell below the standard, for proceedings before the General Dental Council.
Where the expert fits
What the proceedings have to establish
Fitness to practise proceedings run in stages, and the expert’s role differs at each. Getting that boundary wrong is the most common failing in regulatory expert reports.
The burden is on the GDC, and the standard is the civil one: the balance of probabilities. The expert gives evidence on what the clinical records show and whether the treatment departed from the standard expected of a reasonably competent registrant. There is no burden or standard of proof. Whether the facts amount to misconduct or deficient professional performance, and whether fitness to practise is currently impaired, are matters of judgement for the committee. An expert who opines on impairment has stepped outside their role.
The grounds
When to request a Fitness to Practise report
Misconduct
Conduct serious enough to engage the public interest, assessed against the GDC’s Standards for the Dental Team.
Deficient professional performance
A standard of clinical work that falls below what is expected of a reasonably competent registrant.
Adverse physical or mental health
A health ground, on which clinical expert evidence on the standard of care is rarely relevant.
Conviction or caution
A criminal conviction or caution, established by the record rather than by clinical opinion.
Another regulator’s determination
A finding by another regulatory body, taken as the starting point for the GDC’s own consideration.
Who instructs us
The same analysis, whichever party instructs.
We are instructed for the registrant, defending clinical allegations or evidencing remediation; for the complainant, where a patient’s solicitor supports a referral; and for the regulator, on the standard of care expected in the relevant discipline. Where the same treatment is the subject of both a negligence claim and a referral, the two instructions are scoped separately.
The opinion on the standard of care does not change with the instructing party. What changes is the question the report is asked to answer, and we settle that at the point of instruction.
The expert we match
The standard is set by the registrant’s own discipline.
A registrant of the same discipline
The standard applied is that of the practitioner’s own field, so the expert is matched to it rather than to dentistry in general.
Measured against the GDC Standards
Conduct is assessed against the GDC’s Standards for the Dental Team, the benchmark the committee itself applies.
The report you receive
Common GDC Fitness to Practise Reports
Why solicitors instruct us
Evidence that stays within the expert’s proper role.
We know where the role ends
Reports that opine on impairment invite the committee to discount them. Ours address the facts and the standard, and stop there.
Discipline-matched
The standard applied is that of the registrant’s own field, so the expert is drawn from it rather than from dentistry in general.
A named case manager
One point of contact coordinates the instruction from first enquiry through to delivery of the report.
FAQs
Commonly asked questions
For findings of fact it is the civil standard, the balance of probabilities, with the burden on the GDC. At the impairment stage there is no burden or standard of proof; it is a matter of judgement for the committee.
No. Impairment is for the committee. An expert who states an opinion on it has exceeded their role, and the report is weaker for it.
Yes, and for the regulator. The analysis of the standard of care does not change with the instructing party.
No. The two forums ask different questions, and harm is required in one but not the other. Where the same treatment is in issue in both, we scope the reports separately.
The GDC’s Standards for the Dental Team, applied to the standard expected of a reasonably competent registrant in the relevant discipline.
Discuss an instruction