Care Quality Commission Registration Rubbish

Having to register by 2011 is a load of rubbish as 90% of dentists will not pass! The outcomes do not all apply to dentists. We want to serve the public, not to get caught up with pen-pushers and qwangos. Please throw this rubbish out.

Why is this idea important?

Having to register by 2011 is a load of rubbish as 90% of dentists will not pass! The outcomes do not all apply to dentists. We want to serve the public, not to get caught up with pen-pushers and qwangos. Please throw this rubbish out.

CQC regisrtation for dentists

This idea is absolutely daft. Dentists are regulated and checked repeatedly. This is only going to increase an already overloaded beaurocratic form filling box ticking without any improvement in outcomes or patient well-being. This is one of those Labour ideas of keeping the unemployment levels low. Please see some sense and repeal this stupid idea.

Why is this idea important?

This idea is absolutely daft. Dentists are regulated and checked repeatedly. This is only going to increase an already overloaded beaurocratic form filling box ticking without any improvement in outcomes or patient well-being. This is one of those Labour ideas of keeping the unemployment levels low. Please see some sense and repeal this stupid idea.

Exempt Practices That Are BDA Good Practice Members

Dental Practices are small businesses that are being swamped with increased paperwork and auditing. This combined with increased financial pressure will drive dentists to "hang up their drills". This year alone we will have to provide "the same information" for BDA Good Practice Audits, PCT Annual Reviews, Denplan Accreditation, DRO inspection and probably CQC too.

It is important to comply with legislation and strive for best practice. This is why many practices have joined the BDA Good Practice Scheme.

Why not simply exempt practices from CQC who gain and maintain BDA Good Practice Status?

Why is this idea important?

Dental Practices are small businesses that are being swamped with increased paperwork and auditing. This combined with increased financial pressure will drive dentists to "hang up their drills". This year alone we will have to provide "the same information" for BDA Good Practice Audits, PCT Annual Reviews, Denplan Accreditation, DRO inspection and probably CQC too.

It is important to comply with legislation and strive for best practice. This is why many practices have joined the BDA Good Practice Scheme.

Why not simply exempt practices from CQC who gain and maintain BDA Good Practice Status?

Scrap CQC for dentists

Yet another waste of time and resources in an already over regulated and micro -managed profession. This will achieve nothing more than the regulatory bodied that are already there which at least  have some idea about what is involved in Dentistry. I thought we were supposed to be getting rid of thes layers of unnecessary management.

Why is this idea important?

Yet another waste of time and resources in an already over regulated and micro -managed profession. This will achieve nothing more than the regulatory bodied that are already there which at least  have some idea about what is involved in Dentistry. I thought we were supposed to be getting rid of thes layers of unnecessary management.

Amendment of the Dentists Act 1984

 

Dentinal Tubules is an online dental community created for the dental profession to share knowledge, information, ideas and experiences.  We believe that education and knowledge are important in any profession and regulation are important as well. Dentists are regulated by the GDC (as per the Dentists Act 1984)

The Dentists Act 1984 revolved around the General Dental Council, which aims to protect the patient and mantain the high standard of dental education in the United Kingdom.

Yet their over-regulatory framework is setting the profession up for a fall. Regulation is important but it has to be within limits.

We believe the Dentists Act needs to be reviewed, with engagement from the profession it was created to regulate, and thereby allowing a greater trust between the GDC and the profession

We believe that their system …

  1. Is restricted – since they cannot involve themselves in Government policy where many of the problems arise
  2. Creates an environment of increased costs all round which does not help the profession
  3. Creates an environment of extreme caution within the profession such that fear sets in and practical experience is affected
  4. Has degraded practical dental education
  5. Has created an environment of resentment and discontent among dental nurses
  6. Is no longer self regulatory
  7. Is not fair in hearings
  8. Is creating a litigious culture to fluorish

These points are discussed below

We believe our idea is important in order to allow the dental profession to move forward and provide good quality care to patients , without being stifled by an over regulatory body.

Why is this idea important?

 

Dentinal Tubules is an online dental community created for the dental profession to share knowledge, information, ideas and experiences.  We believe that education and knowledge are important in any profession and regulation are important as well. Dentists are regulated by the GDC (as per the Dentists Act 1984)

The Dentists Act 1984 revolved around the General Dental Council, which aims to protect the patient and mantain the high standard of dental education in the United Kingdom.

Yet their over-regulatory framework is setting the profession up for a fall. Regulation is important but it has to be within limits.

We believe the Dentists Act needs to be reviewed, with engagement from the profession it was created to regulate, and thereby allowing a greater trust between the GDC and the profession

We believe that their system …

  1. Is restricted – since they cannot involve themselves in Government policy where many of the problems arise
  2. Creates an environment of increased costs all round which does not help the profession
  3. Creates an environment of extreme caution within the profession such that fear sets in and practical experience is affected
  4. Has degraded practical dental education
  5. Has created an environment of resentment and discontent among dental nurses
  6. Is no longer self regulatory
  7. Is not fair in hearings
  8. Is creating a litigious culture to fluorish

These points are discussed below

We believe our idea is important in order to allow the dental profession to move forward and provide good quality care to patients , without being stifled by an over regulatory body.

Remove dental professionals from regulation by the Care Quality Commission

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Why is this idea important?

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Get rid of the new ‘central clearing for hospital referrals’

As a busy dental surgery we often refer patients to hospitals and orthodontic clinics. Until recently we wrote directly to the secretary of the consultant  concerned who liased with the patient.

Now the 'Central Clearing of Hospital Referrals' office has been bought in and we must write to them. They decide which specialist the patient should see and where they should go.

Of course, when our patients telephone us wanting to know why they have not heard from the hospital, we cannot answer their questions. We don't kow to whom they will be referred nor when their appointment will be. The personal touch has completely gone. Not only this, we have had instances of this new office losing referrals.

The 'Central Clearing for Hospital Referals' is a complete waste of money, presumably created to create a few more jobs. Why should it be up to office workers to decide where a patient goes. It should be up to the dentist who knows who is best to solve the patient's problem. Through their experience, they know the best professionals to refer their patients to.

The orthodonists have also given us their opinion,  that they also think this office is un-necessary. One orthodontist whose clinic is outside of a hospital environment is receiving greatly reduced referrals and feels that his clinic is going down the tubes, whilest his wife, who works in the hospital, said there is many months waiting list. This is obvioulsy not working.

The original system worked well and should be reinstated. The 'Central Clearing for Hospital Referals' should be scrapped now.

 

Why is this idea important?

As a busy dental surgery we often refer patients to hospitals and orthodontic clinics. Until recently we wrote directly to the secretary of the consultant  concerned who liased with the patient.

Now the 'Central Clearing of Hospital Referrals' office has been bought in and we must write to them. They decide which specialist the patient should see and where they should go.

Of course, when our patients telephone us wanting to know why they have not heard from the hospital, we cannot answer their questions. We don't kow to whom they will be referred nor when their appointment will be. The personal touch has completely gone. Not only this, we have had instances of this new office losing referrals.

The 'Central Clearing for Hospital Referals' is a complete waste of money, presumably created to create a few more jobs. Why should it be up to office workers to decide where a patient goes. It should be up to the dentist who knows who is best to solve the patient's problem. Through their experience, they know the best professionals to refer their patients to.

The orthodonists have also given us their opinion,  that they also think this office is un-necessary. One orthodontist whose clinic is outside of a hospital environment is receiving greatly reduced referrals and feels that his clinic is going down the tubes, whilest his wife, who works in the hospital, said there is many months waiting list. This is obvioulsy not working.

The original system worked well and should be reinstated. The 'Central Clearing for Hospital Referals' should be scrapped now.

 

ABOLISH CQC REGISTRATION FOR DENTISTS

Firts of all very slow  web-site, but only to be expected. Why oh why oh why ? have dentists got to register with the CQC quango? We ( despite the general public's opinion) carry out a valuable service which much of the time is extremely stressful, requires unique and well honed people-skills, unique and well honed technical skills, unique and well honed management skills and offers a valuable, and by its nature, extremely precise and well executed service, to patients who think their dentist is fantastic. Dentists are currently regulated by the GDC and their relevant PCT. We undergo inpections, evaluations, we are self governed and work to standards which hospitals, care homes and the like can only dream of. Registration with the CQC will be extremely onerous, it will involve an immense amount of work which will be of no benefit to our patients. No one has managed to convince me that satisfying the 28 outcomes of the CQC will in any way improve the treatment our patients receive, the safety of our patients, or the overall quality of their care. Unfortunately we will have to pay a significant sum of money for the privelege (sic) of this registration. Please! stop this lunacy now

Why is this idea important?

Firts of all very slow  web-site, but only to be expected. Why oh why oh why ? have dentists got to register with the CQC quango? We ( despite the general public's opinion) carry out a valuable service which much of the time is extremely stressful, requires unique and well honed people-skills, unique and well honed technical skills, unique and well honed management skills and offers a valuable, and by its nature, extremely precise and well executed service, to patients who think their dentist is fantastic. Dentists are currently regulated by the GDC and their relevant PCT. We undergo inpections, evaluations, we are self governed and work to standards which hospitals, care homes and the like can only dream of. Registration with the CQC will be extremely onerous, it will involve an immense amount of work which will be of no benefit to our patients. No one has managed to convince me that satisfying the 28 outcomes of the CQC will in any way improve the treatment our patients receive, the safety of our patients, or the overall quality of their care. Unfortunately we will have to pay a significant sum of money for the privelege (sic) of this registration. Please! stop this lunacy now

Revise / Abolish HTM 01/05

This regulation relates to cross infection control in dental practices.

It is largely driven from a weak evidence base based around prions.

It has a "best practice" and an "acceptable minimum"

If the evidence is strong enough for best practice, how can it be safe to define a minimum standard without compromising patient safety?

It isnt!! The best / desirable practice level is a classic case of ass covering by legislators. They know it would be prohibitivley expensive and very difficult for most existing practices to implement, especially in a cash limited area such as NHS dentistry. It also gives quangos such as the Care Quality Commission an opportunity to interfere in our practices.

This legislation was bounced around for several years before being issued. It is flawed, and should be revised to remove the nonsensical "best practice" definition. Either we NEED it, or we dont. The overwhelming evidence base is that the "acceptable minimum" is perfectley adequate.

Why is this idea important?

This regulation relates to cross infection control in dental practices.

It is largely driven from a weak evidence base based around prions.

It has a "best practice" and an "acceptable minimum"

If the evidence is strong enough for best practice, how can it be safe to define a minimum standard without compromising patient safety?

It isnt!! The best / desirable practice level is a classic case of ass covering by legislators. They know it would be prohibitivley expensive and very difficult for most existing practices to implement, especially in a cash limited area such as NHS dentistry. It also gives quangos such as the Care Quality Commission an opportunity to interfere in our practices.

This legislation was bounced around for several years before being issued. It is flawed, and should be revised to remove the nonsensical "best practice" definition. Either we NEED it, or we dont. The overwhelming evidence base is that the "acceptable minimum" is perfectley adequate.