Sir, I write as a member of the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) project team, whose work was referred to in Shaun Sellars' recent article.1 As both a member of the team doing the research and a practising dentist, I am very grateful to the author for highlighting our vital review of professionalism. I agree with the vast majority of what Mr Sellars says, not least the argument put forward in the final paragraph, that for 'right touch' regulation,'we need to understand what society as a whole, and not ourselves as individuals, deems to be appropriate. The only way to do this is to collect the information from dental professionals and the wider community'.

It is important, though, for us to correct a factual inaccuracy contained within the article. Mr Sellars states that 'the GDC, in conjunction with Cardiff University, conducted a survey into professionalism in dentistry' and his final paragraph begins 'It could be argued that the GDC are not the right people to conduct this research'. I know that the GDC would agree with this argument, as indeed this is the very reason they commissioned the ADEE, as specialists in the field, to undertake the research independently.

Having successfully responded to the GDC's competitive tendering process, the ADEE conducted an extensive review of 'professionalism'. This four-part review included: a rapid evidence assessment of the global literature relating to dentistry and wider allied healthcare professions; scoping interviews with topic experts; focus groups with dentists, DCPs and members of the public; and a modified Delphi process (the 'survey' to which the author refers). The two-round Delphi survey was piloted with dental professionals and members of the public and had over 1,000 responses to round one and almost 700 to round two.

As Mr Sellars refers to in his article, there appeared at the time to be misunderstanding amongst some members of the profession about the motivation behind the survey, despite our inclusion of an introduction explaining the rationale and methodology of the research. I hope this clarification of the facts and the subsequent publication of the full review will alleviate any potential concerns.

The review is complete and due for publication in the near future. I am confident that it will prove to be an interesting read, and hope that further discussion will be generated on this vitally important subject.