GDC Interim Order Committee publication changes: Can more be done?

The publication of Interim Order Committee (IOC) determinations often raises concerns over the stress of being investigated as well as reputational damage from the publication of the name of the dental registrant involved.

Over two years ago, we raised concerns about the GDC’s IOC determination publication process, providing detailed legal arguments from leading King’s Counsel, on the need for change. Since then, we have submitted a pre-action letter to the GDC and vigorously lobbied for the GDC policy to be revised.

The former GDC policy

When information about a registrant reaches the GDC and becomes subject to an IOC hearing they may have an order imposed on them which affects their registration. This will either be for the protection of the public, in the public interest, or themselves. Registrants subjected to this process often felt they were being treated as if they were guilty before being proven innocent and the public nature of the determinations and as yet untested allegations meant that the recipient almost inevitably felt stigmatised.

The former GDC policy had been to publish and make public IOC determinations based on a risk assessment before a full investigation of the allegations had taken place, and in the process, this generated unnecessary levels of stress as well as reputational harm for the individuals being investigated. In contrast, other regulatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council (GMC), had already adopted a more considered approach to mitigate such issues.

The stress caused by publishing details of the case frequently extended to practice staff, family members, and others who might be associated with the dental professional being investigated. Additionally, the lengthy, drawn-out nature of the investigatory process, running into many months and even years, exacerbated the stress experienced by those involved and was compounded by the GDC’s long delays in progressing its Fitness to Practise cases.

A welcome first step

On 2 July, the GDC announced a change of policy regarding IOC outcomes. This change means that the Dental Professionals Hearings Service will no longer publish determinations made by the IOC. Instead, outcomes will be published after a hearing or review has taken place, including any action taken to protect the public, patients, or dental professionals. Any restrictions on registration will continue to be added to the online register.

However, concerns remain. Rule 53 creates an unambiguous default presumption that all hearings before a committee should be conducted in public, with some exceptions requiring the committee to invite representations from the parties as to why it should not be held in public. Consequently, anyone can attend (whether in person or online), and the committee has limited powers to prevent public attendance or reporting of the hearing details.

One solution is for the committee to automatically impose reporting restrictions for some or all IOC hearings and accept the default position that all IOC hearings will be held in private unless agreed otherwise. Allowing attendance at an IOC meeting with appropriate reporting restrictions would not be inconsistent with Rule 53. However, managing online meetings is more challenging, as unauthorised parties might covertly attend without the GDC and IOC being aware. It is naive to assume this risk can be entirely mitigated through changes in the GDC’s Disclosure and Publications policy alone.

Yet to be decided

Together with other indemnity providers, we welcome the GDC’s long-overdue recognition of the need for change, particularly because our team of Dento-legal advisers were instrumental in lobbying for this adjustment.

This initial response to the stress-inducing situation is a very welcome positive development; however, since the GDC's current default position is to hold all hearings in public, there remains a risk that interested parties, including journalists, can attend IOC hearings and become privy to the untested information, allegations and outcomes in terms of whether an Interim Order has been made. They can then report the details online or in print without restrictions.

The GDC must consider further steps to protect registrants and minimise the collateral damage for third parties such as family members and dental colleagues throughout the regulatory process. We will continue to monitor the implementation of these changes and advocate for additional measures to ensure that registrants are protected from undue stress and reputational harm during the investigation process.