It was always our intention that the bigger picture of Private Dentistry needed to be considered once the pandemic was over, and particularly how an agenda promoting Quality Dentistry could be adopted.

Another priority was the need to challenge and question our regulators. Our original intent to become a stakeholder in all our conversations which involved dentistry has been fully realised. We accepted we would need to restrict our position on NHS Dentistry to how it affects Private Dentistry and not try to be involved in NHS contract discussions.

We do however believe it is our responsibility to our members to be informed of what is happening in the NHS, and how this might affect the dental market on the larger scale.

We continue to be in regular contact with high level representatives of the GDC and are one of the members of the Dental Leadership Network, facilitated by the GDC. We have always had a reputation for direct speaking, and our opinions are always aired at these meetings without us holding back. As one of our original long-term goals was to have a direct route of communication with the GDC, we are pleased this happened so early in our existence and still continues regularly.

Much of what is discussed at meetings has to remain confidential if the BAPD is to continue to be invited. However, members can be reassured the BAPD will always robustly question regulators and put across the views of its members as the board sees fit.

Whilst the BAPD’s remit is not to get involved with the NHS per se, we have made it clear if the legislative duty of the GDC is to protect the public, then to not criticise such a flawed system (and not the people who work in it) can be seen as a failure of the GDC’s remit. There is a political difficulty for the GDC being seen to take a critical position on this, so it is probably unlikely criticism of the system will ever be heard publicly from the GDC.

In addition, we have discussed the problem with ‘Direct to Consumer’ orthodontic treatments and asked searching questions as to why the GDC seemed unable to act, when it was clear to the profession patient safety was an issue, especially with the demise of one of the largest providers of this service.

These are all issues that we continue to press the GDC on and will press further in the future.

We have also contributed as an association to all of the recent GDC consultations, including indemnity and insurance, the GDC’s strategic plan, and the revision of the scope of practice of Hygienist/therapists.

The same is true of our involvement with the CQC. We have attended multiple meetings and observed how the new forms of inspection were likely to develop. It is challenging to influence organisations such as this given their remit is written in legislation so has a lack of flexibility by its very nature. However, without the input of all the branches of dentistry especially the growing private sector, then it is possible subtle details might be missed when any new methods of inspection were introduced.

We maintain an attendance all the major dental exhibitions and shows and have been fortunate to secure our own lecture theatres which have concentrated more on the political, legal, and quality side of dentistry rather than clinical talks.

We recognise there is often a lack of information regarding topics such as types of indemnity, how to convert a practice to private, and what Quality Dentistry actually means.