General Pharmaceutical Council Restoration Applications – What Pharmacists need to know
Pharmacists removed from the GPhC register, by a fitness to practise committee, can apply for restoration after 5 years but must show evidence of insight and remediation.
Pharmacists removed from the GPhC register, by a fitness to practise committee, can apply for restoration after 5 years but must show evidence of insight and remediation.
What the GPhC means by fitness to practise
Before looking at restoration and how to apply, it is important to understand what the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) means by fitness to practise. It says:
“A pharmacy professional is ‘fit to practise’ when they have the skills, knowledge, character and health necessary to do their job safely and effectively, and when they act professionally and meet the principles of good practice set out in our various standards, guidance and advice.”
Where the GPhC deems a pharmacy professional’s fitness to practise to be impaired, it will refer the matter to its fitness to practise committee that can decide to either:
- take no action
- agree undertakings
- issue a warning
- impose conditions on the registrant’s practice
- suspend the registrant from practising, or
- remove the registrant from the register
GPhC Restoration Overview
Pharmacists removed from the GPhC register, by a fitness to practise committee, can apply for restoration. A decision to grant a restoration can only be made by a fitness to practise committee after a full hearing, and only after five years or more has elapsed since the date of the removal by a committee.
By way of a general overview of the GPhC’s restoration process:
- an application for restoration is not an appeal against, or a review of, the original fitness to
practise committee decision - there is no automatic right to restoration
- when applying for restoration, the ‘burden of proof’ is on the pharmacist or other pharmacy professional
- applicants must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate their fitness to practise
- if the application for restoration is refused, the pharmacist or other pharmacy professional must wait at least 12 months from the date of the application before another application can be made. The committee can however direct that no further applications for restoration can be made
- if the application is successful, the pharmacist or other pharmacy professional’s name will not be restored to the register until they have paid the appropriate registration fee
The committee may:
- grant the application, and direct that the applicant should be restored to the register without
conditions - grant the application, and direct that the applicant should be restored to the register with
conditions for a period of up to 3 years - refuse the application
Restoration Applications
It is highly recommended that pharmacists seek legal advice at the earliest possible opportunity when considering an application for restoration. The process can be long, governed by strict legal rules and requires a clear understanding of the process.
When making this decision, the committee will apply the following test:
“Against the backdrop of the overarching objective[i], is the applicant concerned fit to practise?”
In restoration application proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the pharmacist. This means it is up to the pharmacist to satisfy the fitness to practise committee that they should be restored to the register. It is not for the GPhC to prove or to provide evidence in support or opposition.
Relevant Factors
The GPhC’s fitness to practise committee will consider a range of factors when making a decision. These include:
- The circumstances that led to the removal
- The reasons given by the original committee for the decision to remove
- The applicant’s response to the findings of the committee at the original hearing
- The likelihood of the applicant repeating the conduct that led to their removal from the register
- Evidence demonstrating insight into the seriousness of the allegation which resulted in the applicant being removed from the register
- Evidence of remediation and activities designed to help the applicant learn from the original concern
- Evidence of learning activities designed to keep the applicant’s skills and knowledge up to date
- The lapse of time since the applicant was removed
- Any other relevant evidence to demonstrate that the applicant is fit to practise
Insight and Remediation
Clear evidence of insight and remediation is crucially important when applying for GPhC restoration. There is a great emphasis on:
- The applicant’s response to the findings of the committee at the original hearing
- The likelihood of the applicant repeating the conduct that led to their removal from the register
- Evidence demonstrating insight into the seriousness of the allegation which resulted in the applicant being removed from the register
- Evidence of remediation and activities designed to help the applicant learn from the original concern
All of these relate to insight and remediation. Evidence of both must be genuine, clear, measurable and comprehensive. Pharmacists must however be aware that insight and remediation often takes a long time to achieve. This further speaks of the importance of seeking legal advice at the earliest opportunity.
Insight Works Training will help give you a clear and easy to follow understanding of the regulatory process, explanation of the central role of impairment, how to approach insight and remediation, how to evidence this at your hearing and a directed approach to presenting your learning with evidence in writing and verbally.
Is Legal Advice Necessary?
The simple fact is, as we have already referred to, the restoration process can be long, governed by strict legal rules and requires a clear understanding of the process. When considering the need for legal advice, pharmacists’ should consider the following:
- The burden of proof is on then to make the case for restoration;
- Without legal advice and assistance, pharmacists will need to deal with preliminary issues, consider the need and call on witnesses and respond to committee questions;
- Collate and make judgements on evidence to be presented;
- Failed applications will delay the process for at least a further 12 months or result on the committee ruing that no further applications could be made; and
- Convince the committee of the relevance and strength of insight and remediation.
Kings View Chambers
With over 30 years combined experience, Kings View Chambers have established itself as one of the best when it comes to fitness to practise defence. We fully understand that fitness to practise defence is not merely about processes and procedures. We also understand that we are working with people who are anxious and worried about what investigations might mean for them, their professions and the reputations.
We are proud to be rated ‘excellent’ by our clients. Our commitment to client care is genuine in both seeking the very best outcomes for our clients, but also ensuring we do what we can to support them through the process.
[i] to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and wellbeing of the public, to promote and maintain public confidence in the profession & to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for the profession.
Social media can blur the boundaries between public and private life and doctors must be careful to maintain professional boundaries when using social media.
Good medical practice & other GMC guidance
It is important to note that the standards expected of doctors do not change because they are communicating through social media as opposed to face to face or through other traditional media.
Good medical practice
The Good medical practice states, amongst other things:
- 36 You must treat colleagues fairly and with respect.
- 65 You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession.
- 69 When communicating publicly, including speaking to or writing in the media, you must maintain patient confidentiality. You should remember when using social media that communications intended for friends or family may become more widely available.
- 70 When advertising your services, you must make sure the information you publish is factual and can be checked, and does not exploit patients’ vulnerability or lack of medical knowledge.
Doctors’ use of social media
The GMC has produced guidance for doctors on their use of social media. When using social media, doctors must be careful to ensure social and professional boundaries do not become unclear or blurred. Doctors must ensure they follow the GMC’s Maintaining a professional boundary between you and your patient when using social media. This guidance states, in relation to social media:
“You must consider the potential risks involved in using social media and the impact that inappropriate use could have on your patients’ trust in you and society’s trust in the medical profession. Social media can blur the boundaries between a doctor’s personal and professional lives and may change the nature of the relationship between a doctor and a patient. You must follow our guidance on the use of social media.”
Maintaining doctor-patient partnership, when using social media means that “Patients should be able to trust that their doctor will behave professionally towards them during consultations and not see them as a potential sexual partner.”
Use of social media and fitness to practise
The GMC makes clear that doctors must be prepared to explain and justify their decisions and actions including those that relate to their use of social media. Social media can blur the boundaries between public and private life in ways that would be more obvious in real life situations and this presents a heightened risk for doctors.
However, fundamentally the issues that may arise through the use of social media does not change; privacy and confidentiality, maintaining professional boundaries, respect for colleagues, anonymity and conflict of interest.
The GMC’s guidance goes on to say that “serious or persistent failure to follow our guidance that poses a risk to patient safety or public trust in doctors will put your registration at risk.”
Social media pitfalls – dos and don’ts
Maintaining boundaries
- If a patient contacts you about their care or other professional matters through your private profile, you should indicate that you cannot mix social and professional relationships and, where appropriate, direct them to your professional profile.
- If, as a result of the above, there is a professional breakdown, doctors should consider whether it is appropriate to end their professional relationship with a patient.
- You must not use your professional relationship with a patient to pursue a relationship with someone close to them.
Respect for colleagues
- Report sexualised, unprofessional and/or otherwise inappropriate online behaviour towards patients by colleagues.
Anonymity
- GMC guidance makes clear that doctors who identify themselves as a doctor in publicly accessible social media, you should also identify themselves by name.
Conflict of interest
- When you post material online, you should be open about any conflict of interest and declare any financial or commercial interests in healthcare organisations or pharmaceutical and biomedical companies.
Maintaining confidentiality
- You must not use publicly accessible social media to discuss individual patients or their care with those patients or anyone else.
- Doctors must also take care when discussing “individual pieces of information” because the sum of published information online could be enough to identify a patient or someone close to them.
- The same laws of copyright and defamation as written or verbal communications, whether they are made in a personal or professional capacity.
- You should be aware of the limitations of privacy online and you should regularly review the privacy settings. Remember, social media sites cannot guarantee confidentiality.
- People, colleagues and organisations you are friends with or follow can see your posts and information. You should regularly review these.
- Take extra care when posting photos online, you may inadvertently be sharing information such as location, identity of other people or other personal information in the background.
- When using professional social media sites that are not accessible to the public, be careful not to share identifiable information about patients and/or colleagues.
Is legal representation the answer?
It is widely accepted and proven that legal representation makes a real difference to the outcome of investigations and results in lesser sanctions for doctors.
What is also unquestionably clear is that GMC investigations and MPTS hearings are complex, daunting, prolonged and legalistic leaving doctors stressed and anxious. Where legal advice and representation can have the biggest impact on this, is helping doctors understand the process, what to expect and how to engage with the GMC during an investigation and hearing.
Research has shown that registrant’s engagement and legal representation can impact on decisions about seriousness, and that the lack of legal representation has been identified as being associated with more severe sanctions outcomes in fitness to practise cases, stating:
“Legal representation was seen as important by participants because legal advice could support and guide registrants through the FtP process, which is complex and legalistic. Legal advice was seen as important in aiding registrants to understand regulators’ expectations, especially in terms of the need for registrants to demonstrate insight and perhaps to show evidence of remediation activities. Lack of legal representation was, therefore, seen to potentially have an impact in terms of the seriousness of the outcome for registrants who are perhaps unaware of how to present their case to best effect.”
A compassionate approach to legal representation
The right legal advice and representation is not just about the legalities and technicalities of a case. Our barristers fully understand the stress and anxiety that doctors experience during prolonged GMC investigations.
We also understand that we are working with people who are anxious and worried about what investigations might mean for them, their professions and the reputations.
We never lose sight of the human aspects of FtP investigations and hearings. We will always give an open and honest assessment of cases, but we will marry that with an approach that also supports health and care professionals through the duration of a case.
“I was not optimistic about the case, I felt that it is a lost case that we couldn’t do much about and especially just before the start of the trial I lost my confidence and was very nervous. Mr McCaffrey was there to prove me wrong. He turned everything around in a victorious , panegyric manner. I was stunned.” – CL
Catherine is professional, empathic and very knowledgeable. She provided all the necessary assistance throughout the long thorough investigation. – AR
A colleague recommended me to Catherine. She was very experienced , professional, empathetic , non-judgemental and listened to me. – Mel
I found myself consumed with dark thoughts, isolated and afraid. Stephen worked with me and slowly but surely formulated a plan not to just to fight my case and win, but to build me back up bit by bit so as to prepare me to face external scrutiny and present with confidence to panels where this was necessary. – FJ
What you can Expect when Instructing Kings View
All clients are entitled to an initial, no obligation and free telephone consultation about their case. During this consultation, we will outline the stages and next steps, including indicative timeframes and fixed price quotations for preparation and representation and confirmed in writing at each and every stage.
We understand that timescales are entirely dependent on the stage you are at in proceedings, what work needs to be done and dictated by internal investigations or hearing dates. We always meet those timescales however should more time be needed, then we will apply for such on your behalf and with your permission.
Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.
More News & Articles
General Dental Council close case with no further action
The General Dental Council has closed its investigation into our clients fitness to practise with no further action.
GMC’s duty of care. Is legal representation the answer?
The position on the GMC’s duty of care is now unquestionably clear. We look at the value of legal representation to assist doctors with the stress and anxiety associated with investigations.
Does the GMC have a duty of care to doctors under investigation?
In Suresh & Ors v GMC, the Court examined the GMC’s duty of care and Human Rights Act obligations for doctors under investigation.