Navigating the various GDC requirements can be tricky, but it's essential that all registrants are fully aware of the rules to avoid finding themselves in hot water with their regulator.

One of our dental members recently found himself on the wrong side of the CPD rules. Most dental professionals are aware of the number of verifiable hours of CPD they are required to complete across each five-year cycle.

What often catches them out is the requirement for 10 hours of verifiable CPD to be completed across any two-year period. And importantly, this includes the two years between different CPD cycles. This was the scenario here.

The scene

Our member had completed his last five-year cycle in December 2021, and his new cycle started in January 2022. While he'd exceeded the verifiable CPD required for his last cycle as a whole, in 2021 he completed four hours of verifiable CPD, and three in 2022.

This meant he was three hours short of the 10 hours the GDC requires registrants to complete in any two-year period. Our member was initially unaware of the issue, but a couple of months later the GDC contacted him to say that his CPD statement was not compliant.

While it's possible for the GDC to provide extra time for CPD to be completed, this can only be done if requested before the end of the CPD year. Because our member hadn't made this request, the GDC told him he would be removed from the register and would need to apply to re-join - unless he submitted a successful appeal against the decision.

Our member had sadly faced several difficult personal issues across 2021/22 that had contributed to him not completing the 10 hours of CPD required. The GDC's position up to this point had been that it would only exercise its discretion not to remove a dental professional from the register in cases where CPD hours had been miscalculated.

The GDC registrar hadn't considered our member's circumstances, or whether to exercise the discretion not to remove him from the register. During the pandemic, the GDC had exercised their discretion and shown more leniency, but this position had changed by the time of our member's case.

The hearing - and how we helped

Our member approached the DDU for help with his appeal, which he drafted with one of our dento-legal advisers and then submitted to the GDC.

The GDC's position is that these appeals will be dealt with 'on the papers' - that is, without the attendance of the registrant - unless a registrant requests an oral hearing. Given the circumstances of this case, we considered an oral hearing was needed to ensure the relevant GDC committee were properly considering the case, and we instructed one of our in-house solicitors to help with this.

An oral hearing was then listed before the GDC's Registration Appeal Committee. We provided relevant documentation on behalf of our member to assist with the appeal, and instructed a barrister to represent them at the hearing, which took place remotely.

At the hearing, the barrister for the GDC accepted that the GDC's registrar did have discretion when it came to whether or not to erase a registrant for failing to comply with the CPD rules. The barrister for our member subsequently pointed out the extenuating circumstances, and invited the committee to now exercise that discretion and quash the previous decision to erase our member from the register.

After a nerve-wracking couple of hours for our member, the hearing reconvened and the committee confirmed they had decided to allow our member's appeal. As such, his name would not be removed from the register in 28 days' time (as it would otherwise have been) and he was free to continue to work as normal.

It also meant that he avoided a potentially lengthy wait to re-join the register, during which time he would of course have been unable to see or treat patients.

Top tips from the DDU's experts

The starting point is for all registrants to make sure they are fully aware of the GDC's CPD requirements - and in particular the 10-hour rule, which is often what catches them out.

If you think you're not going to be able to complete the required CPD by the relevant deadline, it's important to contact the GDC to request an extension (known as a grace period) before the end of the relevant CPD year.

This is crucial; the GDC does not have the power to provide a grace period once the relevant CPD year has ended, however good the reason.

If you do get a letter (likely to be marked as a Section 6 Notice) from the GDC saying you have failed to comply with the CPD requirements, seek advice from your indemnifier as soon as possible. The timescales are often tight, and if there are good reasons for non-compliance, giving that evidence at an early stage might mean the registrar decides not to erase.

However, if you have not sought assistance early and you're then faced with an erasure notice, it's important to seek advice from your indemnifier as soon as possible about submitting an appeal.