An Inconvenient Truth
By Richard Daniels
No, I’m not going to force my opinions on global warming onto the dental industry, I’m writing this month about a much closer inconvenient truth: the one of lab assistants.
Back in May of last year, the GDC made its decision to identify two classifications of technical employee within the dental laboratory: the first being a dental technician and the second being a ‘laboratory assistant’, and whilst we all have an opinion regarding the motivation of the GDC for making this judgement, it now seems very clear that the GDC are not going to review and retract their decision, despite the Foster and Donaldson report conclusions.
So, as an industry we are faced with a registration which protects the title of a dental technician but not the deed and an option for dental laboratories to employ unskilled, untrained individuals as lab assistants to carry out any processes within the manufacturing of a custom made dental appliance as long as it is signed off by a registered dental technician.
So what happens when a dental technician is brought before the GDC disciplinary committee for gross professional misconduct and is struck off on a Friday, can he return to the lab on Monday, call himself a ceramist and continue his work without the fear of the GDC’s retribution?
What happens to all the assistants if the technician is removed or leaves the dental laboratory, are they suddenly redundant?
What about the dental technicians who are nearing retirement or who simply do not want to do continuous professional development; can they simply call themselves laboratory assistants, continue as they are, let a registered dental technician sign off their work and continue to go unregulated for the remainder of their career?
I believe that the answer to both of these scenarios is yes, which in my opinion means that the job of statutory registration within dental technology is only half complete.
If the GDC decision last May is to be taken on face value, one of their main concerns was the lack of educational resources and the number of workers who wouldn’t meet the grandfather criteria and therefore be made redundant as a result of statutory registration.
Unfortunately, as a result of their decision, it can be interpreted that there is now no requirement for training and education, an expensive option for any laboratory, so courses will still be in jeopardy and too few people will be educated.
This being the case, we must again draw together as a profession and look at best practice which not only provides a basis for development, but also protects the patient from rogue traders. I strongly believe there should be a register for laboratory assistants, not necessarily held by the GDC, but a register that identifies the existence of such individuals, provides them with ‘professional guidelines’ and incorporates them into the philosophy of continuous professional development. I also feel that this register should be open for those individuals that are currently working as laboratory assistants and once the register is closed no one else can come into the industry unless they enrol on a training course.
In my opinion this achieves the best of both worlds, firstly we have avoided the ‘mass redundancy’ that was predicted and secondly we have a traceability of all members of the dental laboratory team without the GDC having to create a new tier of dental care professional.
The DLA is putting this proposal to the GDC following feedback from members at Face2Face meetings and the recent World Symposium. Will the GDC back these thoughts … only time will tell!
