Unfortunately that is largely where the good news ends. The report also reveals that some 35% of cases took more than six months to be considered at the investigation stage, and more than 50% of those sent forward to a hearing took in excess of a further nine months to reach an outcome.

It cannot be in the public interest for significant numbers of patients to be treated by dental professionals who, for months on end, are subject to the stress and anxiety that come as the inevitable consequence of a fitness to practise investigation - or for those colleagues to have their careers effectively on hold during this time.

Our engagement with the GDC is in both general terms - contributing to its complaints handling initiative, for example, or commenting on changes to its rules and raising points of principle - and in specific cases, where one of our members will be supported by our instructed solicitor and one of our dentally qualified dento-legal advisers.

As laid out in our annual report, in 2017 the DDU supported members with 11,000 requests for advice and assistance, including the opening of over 3,000 new case files and 8,000 calls to our dento-legal advice line. But to keep things in perspective it is important to bear in mind that the vast majority of these were quickly resolved with immediate advice and support over the phone, or with advice followed by a letter of response to conclude a patient complaint at an early stage.

While we are on the subject, I would once again like to dispel the myth that DDU members could be disadvantaged if they ask for our help. Offering expert dento-legal advice is one of our core services and we answer thousands of calls to our advice-line every year, helping members avoid potential issues and mitigate problems that have already arisen.

Green shoots of regulation reform?

Green shoots of regulation reform?