What this means
Start with the exact decision in front of you.
A Practice Committee hearing needs a disciplined plan for evidence, witnesses, expert issues and submissions. The relevant committee and allegations determine the exact route.
Immediate priorities
Organise the position before responding.
Confirm which Practice Committee will hear the case
Audit records, expert evidence and witness availability
Prepare separately for facts, impairment and outcome
Detailed guidance
The procedure, evidence and possible route from here.
01
Identify the committee and its task
Cases referred for a full inquiry are heard through the Dental Professionals Hearings Service, the GDC's adjudication function operating separately from investigation. The Professional Conduct Committee considers misconduct, the Professional Performance Committee addresses deficient professional performance and the Health Committee addresses health-related impairment. Mixed facts can raise more than one issue, so confirm the referral, allegation and committee rather than assuming every dental hearing follows an identical route. That distinction prevents a general explanation from being mistaken for case-specific legal advice.
A substantive hearing generally requires decisions on facts, the statutory ground, current impairment and any sanction. Build separate schedules for those stages. Clinical expert evidence may assist with standards of care or performance but should not decide witness credibility or the ultimate question reserved to the committee. The 2026 Practice Committee guidance should be read alongside the applicable rules, directions and hearing correspondence. Any response should connect this point to the documents and decision actually under consideration.
- Confirm the statutory Practice Committee
- Separate facts, ground, impairment and sanction
- Keep expert opinion within its proper clinical scope
02
Make the clinical evidence navigable
Dental cases can involve dense records, radiographs, laboratory work, consent material and changing treatment plans. Prepare a reliable chronology keyed to original records and explain professional terminology without rewriting the evidence. Where multiple clinicians contributed, identify responsibility for each decision. The hearing bundle should reveal the care pathway, not force the committee to reconstruct it from duplicates and unexplained excerpts. That distinction prevents a general explanation from being mistaken for case-specific legal advice.
Witness preparation should cover the process, existing statement and contemporaneous documents, while preserving independent recollection. Identify inconsistencies before the hearing and decide whether clarification, disclosure or cross-examination is required. If a patient or colleague requires special measures, privacy or scheduling support, raise that through the hearing process. Late applications can disrupt the timetable and may reduce the opportunity for fair case management. Any response should connect this point to the documents and decision actually under consideration.
- Create a treatment chronology linked to original records
- Identify each clinician's role precisely
- Raise witness and procedural needs before the hearing
03
Prepare the current-impairment and outcome evidence
A proved clinical failing does not answer every question about current impairment. Relevant material may include targeted education, audit, peer review, supervised cases, updated protocols and evidence of sustained safe practice. For conduct concerns, the focus may include insight, boundaries, candour or attitudinal change. Each item should address the actual findings; an impressive portfolio that avoids the central weakness will not provide the committee with reliable assurance. Its practical significance must still be assessed against the individual evidence and procedural stage.
If impairment is found, the committee considers the available sanction proportionately under current guidance. Prepare practical information about conditions, supervision and the effect of suspension without asking witnesses to predict the decision. A conditions proposal should be measurable and supported by a real workplace. If erasure is in issue, address the seriousness and public-interest reasoning directly. Outcome submissions should follow the findings the committee actually makes, not a preferred version rejected at the facts stage.
- Match remediation to the specific allegation
- Support proposed conditions with confirmed workplace arrangements
- Adapt outcome submissions to the committee's actual findings
Key questions
Keep the analysis tied to this stage.
Reliability of clinical and factual evidence
Whether fitness to practise is currently impaired
What proportionate action, if any, is needed
Advice is provided only by the regulated firm that accepts a matter.
Common questions
Clarifying the route without assuming the outcome.
Is the Dental Professionals Hearings Service independent of the GDC investigation team?
It provides the adjudication function separately from the GDC's investigatory function. The GDC presents the case and an independent Practice Committee makes the hearing decisions.
Which committee hears a GDC fitness-to-practise case?
It depends on the statutory ground and referral. The principal Practice Committees are Professional Conduct, Professional Performance and Health.
Connected guidance
Continue through the topic map.
Use the hub for the full sequence or choose the connected route that matches the notice.
Official sources
Check the material for this question.
Sources checked 19 September 2026. Rules change, so compare the current notice and linked official material and tell the operator if a citation or summary needs correction.