Sir, the current GDC's stance on the registration of additional qualifications (AQs) on the Dentists Register is completely unsatisfactory.

The position originates from the moratorium imposed in October 2007 on adding any further AQs to the register although those already present were left in place. The net result is a very odd situation: some dentists' AQs are listed, and yet the same qualifications from the same institutions, held by other dentists, are not. Therefore, the Register is now a strange combination of being current in terms of whose names appear on it, with the AQs frozen in time as of October 2007.

The GDC ran a consultation on this issue in 2008, so will be aware of the concerns expressed of achieving fairness towards registrants. For example, dentist X and dentist Y may have the same qualifications but one has only their BDS as an entry on the Register while the other has an additional string. This is confusing from a patient's perspective because there is a difference from the qualifications listed on the respective practice websites to those in the Register. They may reasonably regard the GDC Register as the more authoritative source and so wonder if one dentist is attempting to mislead them or if the other's qualifications are somehow 'inferior'.

This situation seems directly at odds with objectives that the GDC and its Chairman have stated. Early in his tenure, the GDC Chair said, 'So, it was, and remains, a central objective of policy that the customers for different healthcare services should be able to make rational choices, based on reliable information about the quality of performance of different providers…' The status quo is not 'reliable' for patients because of the omissions. More recent GDC publications have stated the GDC's desire to make '… the system better for patients and fairer for dental professionals.'1 The same publication picks up on the theme of public confidence, and the role of the regulator in promoting that.

Furthermore, the current situation appears to indirectly discriminate on the basis of age, since it will obviously disproportionately affect younger cohorts. The Equality Act 2010 imposes a legal requirement on public bodies to not apply a practice which creates indirect discrimination on the basis of age. A 2010 Council meeting paper hinted at recognition of this, 'The current holding position is unequal…'2 The situation needs GDC review to ensure: fairness to registrants, that their actual policies and actions are in line with stated objectives, adherence to the spirit of the Equality Act, and promote public confidence by avoiding predictable misunderstandings.