The GDC’s Fitness to Practise Consultation 2026: What You Need to Know

Introduction

On 26 March 2026, the General Dental Council (GDC) launched a 12-week public consultation on proposed changes to its case examiner guidance and its undertakings bank.

The GDC acknowledges that investigations “can take too long, feel overly complex and lead to a fear of the process” and the proposed changes aim to support a fair, consistent, and transparent process.

The key changes are:

1. Guidance on Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Harassment
2. Standardising the publication period of warnings to 12 months
3. Updating the undertakings bank
4. Accessibility and the removal of technical language wherever possible

Those involved in fitness to practise proceedings, including dental professionals, their representatives, and practitioners who appear in GDC proceedings for registrants or for the regulator, have until the consultation closes on 18 June 2026 to respond to the proposals.

The consultation materials, including the revised guidance and undertakings bank, and the online response form are found here.

The Case Examiner Stage

The proposals are focused on the case examiner stage: the point in the process at which allegations are assessed in pairs by one registered dental professional and one lay person, on the papers, and a decision is made whether to proceed to a practice committee hearing, or to resolve the matter by way of warnings or undertakings.

This stage is a pivotal moment in the fitness to practise process. The revised guidance seeks to update relevant case law and research findings, improve clarity, limit technical terminology, support consistent and proportionate decision-making, and improve transparency about how case examiner decisions are made. By doing so, the case examiners will be better equipped to assess and progress matters.

The Proposed Changes and What They Mean in Practice

1. Guidance on Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Harassment

The proposals include further guidance for case examiners on allegations of sexual misconduct, discrimination, and harassment. The GDC states that this guidance “emphasises the seriousness of these concerns”. The intention is that case examiners dealing with these categories of allegation will have clearer, more structured direction to support consistent and well-reasoned decisions.

This is a welcomed change as these are among the most serious forms of professional misconduct, and the GDC is right that they warrant specific attention in the guidance. However, the function of case examiners is to assess whether the evidence before them supports a realistic prospect of a finding of impaired fitness to practise. It could be argued that this revision may cause case examiners to treat this category as presumptively serious without properly weighing the evidence in the specific case. Practitioners should therefore be alert to this.

That said, it is noted that this change aligns case examiner guidance with recent reforms to the practice committee guidance, which streamlines the process. Whilst consistency across stages is sensible, this alignment should not obscure that the case examiner stage involves a different standard and procedure to the fitness to practise committee hearing stage.

2. Standardising Warning Publication Periods

The GDC proposes to standardise the publication period for case examiner warnings to 12 months. At present, the duration of publication is not uniform, which creates confusion and inconsistency in how warnings are understood and communicated.

Although a warning is less restrictive outcome than conditions, suspension, and erasure, its publication is has significant consequences as it is visible on the register. Knowing that a warning will be published for a fixed period for all registrants improves transparency and supports informed decision-making about whether a registrant should accept a warning or request a review. For practitioners advising registrants, this is a significant development that allows for better advice and for the registrant’s expectations to be managed properly.

The proposed standardisation is also consistent with the GDC’s broader approach to fitness to practise outcomes, which improves the integrity of the process as a whole.

3. The Undertakings Bank for Case Examiners

The revised undertakings bank aims to better reflect “the distinct nature and purpose of undertakings” and clearly reflect the distinction between undertakings and sanctions imposed by a practice committee following a hearing.

Undertakings agreed at the case examiner stage are a consensual agreement between the registrant and the GDC without the need for a public hearing. They allow a case to be resolved in a way that protects the public while avoiding the disproportionate burden of contested proceedings, where appropriate. In effect, they deliver proportionate regulation.

An undertakings bank that better reflects the specific purpose of undertakings, and that supports case examiners in offering conditions that are proportionate to what the evidence actually shows, would be a genuine improvement.

4. Plain Language and Accessibility

The GDC acknowledges that the guidance may be used by a diverse audience, not only case examiners. It therefore needs to be accessible to others including patients, registrants, legal representatives, dental organisations / associations, those who raise concerns, and the public.

The revised guidance proposes to remove technical language from the guidance wherever possible. Some technical language is inevitable to ensure accuracy, but stripping out excessive jargon is a positive change for all, particularly for those navigating the process without the benefit of legal representation.

Conclusion

Delays, inconsistency and opacity of process causes harm to complainants awaiting resolution, to registrants whose lives and careers are on hold, and to public confidence. The GDC’s consultation is a genuine attempt to modernise a process that has unfortunately caused unnecessary distress and confusion. Tailored guidance, standardisation, distinguishing current processes, and improving accessibility are all steps in the right direction.

A key part of the GDC’s vision is ensuring fitness to practise processes are fair, efficient and proportionate, as well as improving transparency. As Chief Executive and Registrar, Tom Whiting, puts it best: “It matters that the guidance used to make these decisions is up to date, clear and supports decision-makers to act consistently at every stage.”

---

About the Author

Shekyena Marcelle-Brown specialises in Professional Discipline and Criminal Law. She regularly appears in healthcare professional regulatory proceedings involving in serious, complex fitness to practise matters such as allegations of dishonesty, sexual misconduct, and harassment. She has extensive experience at all stages of proceedings and conducts training sessions on professional discipline proceedings.