yet again another attempt to make it even more difficult to spend our time as dental professionals to what it matters most and I mean providing clinical dentsitry rather than bureaucratic dentistry. This idea has floorished from probably a group of people who do not know anything about the real world of a busy dental professionals life.
This will hit small practices hardest where the available funding for complying with all these unneceassry regulations is very limited. Deep inside I do believe that this is an attempt to get rid of small practices .However no matter whether we are small single surgery practices or large multi surgery and corporate, I really do think we should stand side by side altogether and protest against these meaningless waste of resoursces.
We probably have never been good at showing the authorities and other governing bodies that we are the one who actually providing the actual work for the people and we should be consulted in this and probably many other respects . An unhappy professional with huge burden on his/hers shoulder to deal with these meaningless regulations will not be able to provide high quality of the service that these penpusher are looking for
We should go out really strong and hopefully with a large majority can show that they can not run over us and if we do that once probably we gain a little more respect and they will treat us better next time.
Just look at the BA cabin crews strike action , London undergrounds staff strike and many other who successfully have won the respect of their counterpart.
Why cant we do the same??!!
Why is this idea important?
yet again another attempt to make it even more difficult to spend our time as dental professionals to what it matters most and I mean providing clinical dentsitry rather than bureaucratic dentistry. This idea has floorished from probably a group of people who do not know anything about the real world of a busy dental professionals life.
This will hit small practices hardest where the available funding for complying with all these unneceassry regulations is very limited. Deep inside I do believe that this is an attempt to get rid of small practices .However no matter whether we are small single surgery practices or large multi surgery and corporate, I really do think we should stand side by side altogether and protest against these meaningless waste of resoursces.
We probably have never been good at showing the authorities and other governing bodies that we are the one who actually providing the actual work for the people and we should be consulted in this and probably many other respects . An unhappy professional with huge burden on his/hers shoulder to deal with these meaningless regulations will not be able to provide high quality of the service that these penpusher are looking for
We should go out really strong and hopefully with a large majority can show that they can not run over us and if we do that once probably we gain a little more respect and they will treat us better next time.
Just look at the BA cabin crews strike action , London undergrounds staff strike and many other who successfully have won the respect of their counterpart.
Why cant we do the same??!!
Unreasonable and totally unnecessary,complete waste of clinical time.
Why is this idea important?
Unreasonable and totally unnecessary,complete waste of clinical time.
This is NOT a good idea for dental practices who already have enough red tape on them. The practices are being put under immense financial and staffing burden withthis and not being compensated by anyone. also when was the last time that infections were such an issue in the practices. almost never!!! Ethical dentists as we are, we already oversee patient safety to a high standard
Why is this idea important?
This is NOT a good idea for dental practices who already have enough red tape on them. The practices are being put under immense financial and staffing burden withthis and not being compensated by anyone. also when was the last time that infections were such an issue in the practices. almost never!!! Ethical dentists as we are, we already oversee patient safety to a high standard
The CQC takes over from an organisation which did not exactly cover itself in glory, in fact in relation to hospital inspections it was negligent. The application of CQC regulation to Dental Practice has been transposed from the regime for Care Homes and Hospitals with little or no adaptation because dental expertise has not been adequately involved.
There is extensive duplication of the functions of the General Dental Council in regulating the profession (at least as far as we can understand at the moment) and the inspection regimes of PCTs and the DRO system.
We are 8 months away from CQC registration yet a regime that can close a practice down has yet to make clear EXACTLY what will be rquired from us and even the most basic information i.e. cost of registration is unknown.This is also a MASSIVE admin burden especially on single-handed practices.
This proposal has all the hallmarks of creating another monster like the Child Support Agency.
Why is this idea important?
The CQC takes over from an organisation which did not exactly cover itself in glory, in fact in relation to hospital inspections it was negligent. The application of CQC regulation to Dental Practice has been transposed from the regime for Care Homes and Hospitals with little or no adaptation because dental expertise has not been adequately involved.
There is extensive duplication of the functions of the General Dental Council in regulating the profession (at least as far as we can understand at the moment) and the inspection regimes of PCTs and the DRO system.
We are 8 months away from CQC registration yet a regime that can close a practice down has yet to make clear EXACTLY what will be rquired from us and even the most basic information i.e. cost of registration is unknown.This is also a MASSIVE admin burden especially on single-handed practices.
This proposal has all the hallmarks of creating another monster like the Child Support Agency.
Dentistry is already overregulated. Registration with the cqc will be an unnecessary tickbox expense of no benefit to the patient and will not improve clinical care.
Why is this idea important?
Dentistry is already overregulated. Registration with the cqc will be an unnecessary tickbox expense of no benefit to the patient and will not improve clinical care.
I strongly diagree with the proposed introduction of CQC registration for dental practices. It is a good way to generate red tape and money for the government and without any discernable benefit to the patients..
Why is this idea important?
I strongly diagree with the proposed introduction of CQC registration for dental practices. It is a good way to generate red tape and money for the government and without any discernable benefit to the patients..
Nobody has been infected by CJD prions as a result of dental treatment.
The costs involved will finish off small NHS practices.
Why is this idea important?
Nobody has been infected by CJD prions as a result of dental treatment.
The costs involved will finish off small NHS practices.
CQC or 'Care Quality Commision', represents a duplication of existing legislation.
Large organisations like hospitals may employ a legal team to deal with 'red tape', but most small dental practices consist of clinical teams of a dentist and dental nurse supported by a receptionist. The legislation about to be implemented was designed for hospitals etc, but dental practices are caught up in the net.
The CQC should disregard dental practices which already comply with the regulations under the GDC remit.
Why is this idea important?
CQC or 'Care Quality Commision', represents a duplication of existing legislation.
Large organisations like hospitals may employ a legal team to deal with 'red tape', but most small dental practices consist of clinical teams of a dentist and dental nurse supported by a receptionist. The legislation about to be implemented was designed for hospitals etc, but dental practices are caught up in the net.
The CQC should disregard dental practices which already comply with the regulations under the GDC remit.
Scrap the CQC
Why is this idea important?
I support the idea submitted by the Dental Law Partnership, to abolish the Care Quality Commision.
Why is this idea important?
I support the idea submitted by the Dental Law Partnership, to abolish the Care Quality Commision.
Dentistry is already a very heavily regulated body – General Dental Council, PCT,s and bodies such as Denplan. To add a new regulatory body, the Care Quality Commissin, is totally unnecessary. The few private practices who fail to come under the PCT or Denplan regulatory checks do need some form of monitoring. This would be better achieved by extending the remit of the PCT's or Denplan's annual checks to these practices.
Most practices in this country are mixed NHS and Private. As such they already have rigorous annual checks from the NHS and also bodies such as Denplan. To add another monitoring body is not only unnecessary but is also a waste of taxpayers money in these tight fiscal times.
Why is this idea important?
Dentistry is already a very heavily regulated body – General Dental Council, PCT,s and bodies such as Denplan. To add a new regulatory body, the Care Quality Commissin, is totally unnecessary. The few private practices who fail to come under the PCT or Denplan regulatory checks do need some form of monitoring. This would be better achieved by extending the remit of the PCT's or Denplan's annual checks to these practices.
Most practices in this country are mixed NHS and Private. As such they already have rigorous annual checks from the NHS and also bodies such as Denplan. To add another monitoring body is not only unnecessary but is also a waste of taxpayers money in these tight fiscal times.
I support the idea put forward by the dental law partnership, CQC is a duplicate in may instances of GDC regulation.
Why is this idea important?
I support the idea put forward by the dental law partnership, CQC is a duplicate in may instances of GDC regulation.
A refusal by The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Management Team to financially support non-essential fluoridation programmes and a refusal to sponsor the National Fluoride Information Centre at its derelict, deserted office at Manchester University would not cause unemployment. A better use of the money would be for the establishment of pre-natal, post-natal, nursery and school dentistry services which would create employment or preserve jobs and which would be more effective in the long-term in preventing dental decay. Such ethical interventions would promote the practice of lifelong dental hygiene as well as cascading hygiene down through the generations so that dental decay in children would be a rare occurrence.
Fluoridation is an illegal state intervention which should not be underpinned by public money. Fluoridation is an unwise intervention which ultimately disfigures children's teeth (dental fluorosis) and which causes ill-health amongst susceptible adults who are fluoridated. It's also medically unethical and against our civil liberties.
Why is this idea important?
A refusal by The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Management Team to financially support non-essential fluoridation programmes and a refusal to sponsor the National Fluoride Information Centre at its derelict, deserted office at Manchester University would not cause unemployment. A better use of the money would be for the establishment of pre-natal, post-natal, nursery and school dentistry services which would create employment or preserve jobs and which would be more effective in the long-term in preventing dental decay. Such ethical interventions would promote the practice of lifelong dental hygiene as well as cascading hygiene down through the generations so that dental decay in children would be a rare occurrence.
Fluoridation is an illegal state intervention which should not be underpinned by public money. Fluoridation is an unwise intervention which ultimately disfigures children's teeth (dental fluorosis) and which causes ill-health amongst susceptible adults who are fluoridated. It's also medically unethical and against our civil liberties.
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?
The GDC is no longer representative of the vast majority of General Practitioners made up as it is from a majority of laymen (who know little or nothing about dentistry) Achedemics (who know less) and only 2 or 3 part time practitioners who have any experience of Primary Care. The profession would not be in it's present parless and demoralised state if it had some sort of positive leadership. Why do we allow what was a respected profession to be pushed around by the government and any overpaid civil servant looking for something to justify his meaningless existance when the government is moving heaven and earth to get dentistry out of the NHS with as little muck sticking to them as possible. The government elects the GDC and we are mad enough to pay for it!
CQC is at least paid for by the Government , though no doubt in years to come the costs of this teetering administrarion will be passed on to us.
Why is this idea important?
The GDC is no longer representative of the vast majority of General Practitioners made up as it is from a majority of laymen (who know little or nothing about dentistry) Achedemics (who know less) and only 2 or 3 part time practitioners who have any experience of Primary Care. The profession would not be in it's present parless and demoralised state if it had some sort of positive leadership. Why do we allow what was a respected profession to be pushed around by the government and any overpaid civil servant looking for something to justify his meaningless existance when the government is moving heaven and earth to get dentistry out of the NHS with as little muck sticking to them as possible. The government elects the GDC and we are mad enough to pay for it!
CQC is at least paid for by the Government , though no doubt in years to come the costs of this teetering administrarion will be passed on to us.
The modern phrase, which I hate, is "this is a no brainer". This is regulation for regulation sake. GDP's have more than a sufficiency of regulation. In times of austerity (in fact all the time) we should be looking at efficiency savings, and since most, if not all of this CQC work ,will be duplication, there is no perceived benefit to the public or the profession in pursuing this.
Why is this idea important?
The modern phrase, which I hate, is "this is a no brainer". This is regulation for regulation sake. GDP's have more than a sufficiency of regulation. In times of austerity (in fact all the time) we should be looking at efficiency savings, and since most, if not all of this CQC work ,will be duplication, there is no perceived benefit to the public or the profession in pursuing this.
CQC IS A TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE WAY TO INSPECT AND REGULATE DENTAL PRACTICE . MAYBE APPROPRIATE FOR LARGE ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS HOSPITALS BUT DENTAL PRACTICE ALREADY REGULATED BY GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL AND LOCALLT PCT.
Why is this idea important?
CQC IS A TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE WAY TO INSPECT AND REGULATE DENTAL PRACTICE . MAYBE APPROPRIATE FOR LARGE ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS HOSPITALS BUT DENTAL PRACTICE ALREADY REGULATED BY GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL AND LOCALLT PCT.
Dental practices should be removed from the CQC submission as they are already adequately monitored and controlled by the GDC.
I believe the CQC registration will result in a duplication of regulatory bodies in Dentistry and will inevitably result in over regulation.
I support the submission from the Dental Law Partnership.
Why is this idea important?
Dental practices should be removed from the CQC submission as they are already adequately monitored and controlled by the GDC.
I believe the CQC registration will result in a duplication of regulatory bodies in Dentistry and will inevitably result in over regulation.
I support the submission from the Dental Law Partnership.
CQC is absolutely not necessary ,again an idea created by the pencil pushing bureacrats of the previous failed labour government. Has nobody told these fools that the GDC already has the said powers to deal with Clinical quality and Governance in place. So what is the point of wasting public money on this in these difficult times of a weak economy and recession. I hope that this idea of further legislation is abolished and that Mr Clegg see's the light and sense not to let this ridiculous commission to come into existance.WE DO NOT WANT ANY MORE REGULATION,CAN'T YOU SEE IT HAS BECOME A BIND!!! WE ARE DENTISTS AND CLINICIANS NOT PENCIL PUSHING ADMINISTRATORS!
Why is this idea important?
CQC is absolutely not necessary ,again an idea created by the pencil pushing bureacrats of the previous failed labour government. Has nobody told these fools that the GDC already has the said powers to deal with Clinical quality and Governance in place. So what is the point of wasting public money on this in these difficult times of a weak economy and recession. I hope that this idea of further legislation is abolished and that Mr Clegg see's the light and sense not to let this ridiculous commission to come into existance.WE DO NOT WANT ANY MORE REGULATION,CAN'T YOU SEE IT HAS BECOME A BIND!!! WE ARE DENTISTS AND CLINICIANS NOT PENCIL PUSHING ADMINISTRATORS!
CQC for dentistry is a cumbersome expensive idea providing very little if any benefit for patients and yet creating another unneeded level of bureacracy.
The best way to improve everything in dentistry is to let market forces decide.The public are much more credible judges of standards than any bureaucratic machine.
Why is this idea important?
CQC for dentistry is a cumbersome expensive idea providing very little if any benefit for patients and yet creating another unneeded level of bureacracy.
The best way to improve everything in dentistry is to let market forces decide.The public are much more credible judges of standards than any bureaucratic machine.
It is clear that the introduction of cqc registration for dental practices is an unnecessary duplication of already tight regulation and guidelines from the GDC. The BDA Good Practice scheme already validates the clinical guidance necessary in a dental practice. Regular practice inspections further ensure compliance and it is already the responsibility of every dentist to ensure a well run practice. Why have another unnecessary regulatory body, the cqc, to waste money and duplicate what is already done elsewhere?
Why is this idea important?
It is clear that the introduction of cqc registration for dental practices is an unnecessary duplication of already tight regulation and guidelines from the GDC. The BDA Good Practice scheme already validates the clinical guidance necessary in a dental practice. Regular practice inspections further ensure compliance and it is already the responsibility of every dentist to ensure a well run practice. Why have another unnecessary regulatory body, the cqc, to waste money and duplicate what is already done elsewhere?
All dentist are already registered with the GDC and needing to comply with endless list of laws and regulations already.
So why we need similar regulation by the CQC? Indeed why do we need the CQC at all!!!!
Why is this idea important?
All dentist are already registered with the GDC and needing to comply with endless list of laws and regulations already.
So why we need similar regulation by the CQC? Indeed why do we need the CQC at all!!!!
There is no proof that current infection control procedures are not adequate and little evidence that new procedures are necessary.
Why is this idea important?
There is no proof that current infection control procedures are not adequate and little evidence that new procedures are necessary.
Decontamination standards in Dentistry in the UK are already the highest in Europe. Other parts of the EU do not Sterilise instruments between patients unless they have been contaminated with blood – their rationale – these instruments are as contaminated as the knife and fork used in a restaurant and need the same standard of decontamination ie. a good wash. HTM01-05 in the introduction says that it has been written in response to vCJD (so far in the UK less than 200 cases {only 2 in Northern Ireland} when the experts had predicted a minimum of 20,000 cases). Also in the introduction it says that no matter what is done the prions cannot be deactivated ( the document could have stopped here at page 7).
In conclusion HTM01-05 has been written to take care of a problem that does not exist and if it did exist it would not take care of the problem.
I would put our local decontamination measures up against any in Europe and certainly against the secondary care sector in the UK.
Why is this idea important?
Decontamination standards in Dentistry in the UK are already the highest in Europe. Other parts of the EU do not Sterilise instruments between patients unless they have been contaminated with blood – their rationale – these instruments are as contaminated as the knife and fork used in a restaurant and need the same standard of decontamination ie. a good wash. HTM01-05 in the introduction says that it has been written in response to vCJD (so far in the UK less than 200 cases {only 2 in Northern Ireland} when the experts had predicted a minimum of 20,000 cases). Also in the introduction it says that no matter what is done the prions cannot be deactivated ( the document could have stopped here at page 7).
In conclusion HTM01-05 has been written to take care of a problem that does not exist and if it did exist it would not take care of the problem.
I would put our local decontamination measures up against any in Europe and certainly against the secondary care sector in the UK.
The burden of regulation on dental practice is increasing to such an extent it will affect the delivery of care to patients. The HTM01-05 decontamination guidelines have been introduced without a clear evidence base and will be difficult for many practices to apply. It places an unacceptable burden on practitioners striving to deliver high quality care to their patients and will drive many from practice decreasing the availability of care for patients.The need for HTM01-05 needs to be vigorously and urgently reviewed.
Why is this idea important?
The burden of regulation on dental practice is increasing to such an extent it will affect the delivery of care to patients. The HTM01-05 decontamination guidelines have been introduced without a clear evidence base and will be difficult for many practices to apply. It places an unacceptable burden on practitioners striving to deliver high quality care to their patients and will drive many from practice decreasing the availability of care for patients.The need for HTM01-05 needs to be vigorously and urgently reviewed.