Making fair decisions

We are committed to making fair decisions. We do that by ensuring we treat people equally, providing support when requested, and use data and other evidence to identify and mitigate any unfairness in our processes.

A recent focus has been to provide our teams with the skills and guidance needed to identify and avoid any discrimination or bias in processing, and strengthening our decision-making guidance for our staff members and associates.

Understanding fairness in our processes

We continually use feedback and research to improve our understanding of how our processes are experienced by different groups with shared protected characteristics. We primarily use independent audits, scrutiny and quality assurance processes to monitor and ensure fairness in our process and decision-making.

Our data on the protected characteristics of dental professionals help us to identify disproportionality in our processes. We use these data over time to identify areas of potential concern. We also use data, alongside new research and dialogue to monitor and evaluate any progress.

You can find data relating to the protected characteristics of dental professionals who are subject to a fitness to practise investigation or hearing at the Dental Professional Hearings Service in our Fitness to Practise reports. We continue to develop our understanding of what this data is telling us and how we can use it to understand and address any discrimination or bias across our processes.

The Fitness to Practise Report 2025 provides the latest data on a range of protected characteristics of dental professionals subject to an investigation or hearing. The figures are reported at each of the four stages of the process. The report indicates that some groups with shared characteristic are over or under-represented in the data, when compared to registration data. However, in terms of cause and effect, our data alone cannot determine all of the factors that may be causing disproportionality, including those that apply before concerns are raised with us.

We do not currently report on the protected characteristics of those who raise concerns with us, or act as witnesses, due to a low number of returns. However, we do have recorded data on the protected characteristic for around a third of people who have raised a concern with us over the last two years. Current data suggests we will have enough responses for data analysis and reporting to begin in 2027.

We have completed research to better understand our processes and any differences in outcomes relating to protected characteristics. You can find the following publications in our research hub:

We have a robust system of scrutiny and quality assurance for decisions leading to case outcomes in fitness to practise, including internal audits and independent annual reviews of a sample of cases. Fitness to practise decisions are monitored and reviewed to mitigate the risk of operational bias and discrimination by the:

Quality Assurance Group.
Decision Scrutiny Group.
Statutory Panellists Assurance Committee.

These groups provide updates to our Council.

This robust quality assurance process helps to assure us on the fairness and consistency of decision-making, and allows us to identify any issues and take the necessary action, such as additional training.

Find out more about these groups.

Ensuring decision-makers have the necessary skills

Council and Executive Leadership Team members have received equality, diversity and inclusion training, as have Fitness to Practise panellists. We have delivered the following training to decision-makers and advisers:

Unconscious bias training to panellists.
Sexual misconduct training to panellists.
Supporting neuro-diverse participants to panel Chairs.
Anti-discrimination training to all fitness to practise staff members.

We have provided training for legal advisers to support casework relating to allegations of racism, offensive behaviour and political commentary, helping to ensure we are appropriately balancing considerations on freedom of expression.

We are planning similar training for panellists in 2026.

Guidance for fitness to practise decision-makers

Our guidance for Fitness to Practise panellists and other decision-makers is in the process of comprehensive review. We have completed guidance reviews for practice committees, the Interim Orders Committee and issued case examiner guidance for public consultation. We plan to issue draft guidance for initial assessment decision-makers for consultation in August 2026.

The guidance updates include providing detailed considerations and makes it explicit that allegations of sexual misconduct and discriminatory behaviour are inherently serious.

We updated the guidance for considering applications for voluntary removal for dental professionals who are subject to fitness to practise proceedings in August 2024. We provide specific guidance for these decisions, due to the public interest in concluding certain cases. The most recent updates to this guidance included strengthening consideration of health conditions and the impact of investigations on mental health of the dental professional involved.

Our case management guidance for the Dental Professionals Hearings Service sets out the adaptations or special measures that can be put in place to make it easier for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence. You can find out further details on our page about requesting reasonable adjustments.

We hold the majority of our hearings remotely, although dental professionals can continue to request an in-person hearing. We moved to remote hearings to improve and support participation, particularly for those who find travelling difficult due to disability, impairment or caring responsibilities.

The hearings service provides extensive guidance on how witnesses are supported during dental professional hearings. All witnesses are advised that additional support is available from a hearings service support officer.

We provide signposting for dental professionals who may be in need of support during a fitness to practise investigation or hearing.

More about engagement and influencing EDI outcomes