GDC remediation courses for dental professionals

Start from the wording of the allegation, not from the course title. If the GDC letter talks about "failing to obtain informed consent", the consent and ethics courses fit better than a general professionalism course. Most registrants need two or three subject courses plus the core trio of insight, reflection and remediation.

If your case mixes several themes, such as poor records that were later altered, cover each one: records and probity are separate failings and panels look at them separately. Not sure where you fit? The which course do I need tool asks a few questions and suggests a short list. The dental-specific courses, Dental professionalism and Dental ethics, work through the GDC's Standards for the Dental Team, scope of practice, indemnity, consent and fees, so most dental registrants add one of them to a subject course.

Hearings are decided by the GDC's three practice committees: the Professional Conduct Committee, the Professional Performance Committee and the Health Committee. The Dental Professionals Hearings Service runs them. Since 6 January 2026 the committees have followed the GDC's updated Fitness to Practise: Guidance for the practice committees, published alongside a revised Conditions bank for the practice committees. Earlier in the process, case examiners apply their own guidance. The GDC consulted on new case examiner guidance and an updated undertakings bank between March and June 2026, so check the GDC website for the version in force when your case is considered.

Current impairment is the question

The committee does not ask only whether something went wrong. It asks whether your fitness to practise is impaired today, and whether you are likely to repeat the failing. That is why the guidance tells committees to look at whether the concern can easily be remedied, whether it has been remedied, and whether it is likely to happen again. A strong remediation package answers all three.

Insight counts more than polished words

The guidance treats insight as an important factor and asks committees to rely on evidence of it, not on hopeful statements. It also makes clear that recognising what needs correcting matters more than how eloquently you express it. In practice that means a plain, honest reflection that names the impact on the patient, the team and public confidence, and then shows what you did about it. The Insight course is built around that distinction.

Training is judged on relevance

Committees examine what kind of remediation you did and how relevant it is to the facts found proved. When they look at a course, they consider its length and whether it had practical elements, an assessment or reflection at the end. A certificate for a course that does not touch the allegation carries little weight. One that matches the concern, ends in an assessment, and is followed by your own reflective writing and changes in practice carries much more.

Testimonials are read with care

The guidance asks committees to treat testimonials cautiously and to check how recent they are and whether the writers knew about the allegations. A committee should not hold it against you if you have none, but well-informed testimonials from people who have seen your practice since the concern can help. The GDC has also published research, Evaluation of remediation support in UK dentistry, which is worth reading if you want to see how remediation is supported across the profession.

A good evidence pack tells a single, consistent story: what happened, why, what you learned, what you changed and how you know the change has held. Panels see many bundles, and the ones that persuade are specific to the concern and to the setting you work in.

• Certificates of relevant learning. Each certificate should map to an allegation. Note the date you completed it and why you chose it.
• Reflective accounts in your own words. Write one per course and one overall reflection on the concern. The reflective statement builder gives you prompts and a structure; the words must be yours.
• Changes in practice. Examples include a record-keeping audit and re-audit, a revised consent and treatment-plan template, a fees policy, a complaints log, or notes from a supervisor or mentor.
• Testimonials. Ask colleagues, practice owners or supervisors who know about the allegations and have seen your recent work. The testimonial request generator drafts a request that tells them what a committee needs.
• Ongoing CPD. Keep your enhanced CPD record and personal development plan up to date, so the remediation sits inside normal professional development.

Before you assemble anything, run the remediation readiness check to spot gaps. The remediation pathway then takes you through course choice, reflection, evidence and timing in order.

Healthcare Practise UK is an independent education provider. We are not affiliated with the General Dental Council or the Dental Professionals Hearings Service, and our courses are not approved by the GDC. No course can promise a particular outcome: case examiners and committees make their own decisions on all the evidence.

Our courses help you understand the standards, reflect on what happened and plan change. They do not replace legal or professional advice. If you face a GDC investigation, speak to your dental defence organisation, indemnity provider, union or a solicitor before you send anything to the GDC, and let them review your remediation pack.