General Pharmaceutical Council’s Provisional Enquiries

We explain the GPhC’s initial enquiries process and what a pharmacist should do when they are under investigation.

What is GPhC fitness to practise?

To remain on the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) register, pharmacy professionals must be “fit to practise”. The GPhC defines fitness to practise as pharmacy professionals:

“having the skills, knowledge, character and health necessary to do their job safely and effectively, act professionally and meet the principles of good practice set out in our various standards, guidance and advice.”

The GPhC will investigate concerns which suggest that a pharmacy professional’s fitness to
practise may be impaired. A pharmacy professional’s fitness to practise can be impaired for a number of reasons, including misconduct, lack of competence, not having the necessary
knowledge of English, ill-health or a conviction or caution for a criminal offence.

What is initial assessment?

An “initial assessment” is the first stage in the GPhC’s fitness to practise concerns process and can be broken down into five parts,

Receipt of the concern
Assessment of whether the concern is within the GPhC’s remit to investigate
Initial enquiries
Initial assessment test
Decision

Initial Enquiries

As this suggests, this involves the GPhC’s gathering of information. According to the GPhC, these enquiries will be “targeted and proportionate” and will be “limited to what is necessary to make a decision”.

There is a range of things the GPhC will look at and investigate including, but not limited to:

The impact of the concern
Evidence of insight and remediation
Whether the matter appears to be part of a wider pattern of concern
Whether the pharmacy professional has any history of fitness to practise concerns
The likelihood of the behaviour being repeated
Any relevant contextual matters
Whether the concern suggests a pharmacy professional has failed to meet any relevant published professional standards or guidance

It is also worth noting that the GPhC is likely to speak to your employer, and initial enquiry investigations can take between three and nine months from the point the concern was first raised.

Initial assessment test

There are a number of outcomes at the conclusion of the initial enquiries. The GPhC will apply a threshold test to determine whether a pharmacy professional’s fitness to practise may be currently impaired.

Concerns which do not suggest that a pharmacy professional’s fitness to practise is currently impaired will be closed. Where there is doubt about whether to open an investigation or not, we will favour opening an investigation.

Outcomes at the conclusion of the initial enquiries are:

Open an investigation
Conclude the concern with no further action
Conclude the concern by sharing intelligence with our inspectorate
Conclude the concern with informal guidance
Agree a voluntary agreement with the pharmacy professional

What you should consider when notified of a GPhC investigation

Pharmacists and other pharmacy professionals should carefully consider their position and approach when they receive notification from the GPhC that they are the subject of a fitness to practise investigation.

The GPhC recommends that pharmacists and other pharmacy professionals “seek advice about the investigation” from, amongst others, legal professionals. This is important for a number of reasons, including:

It will assist you with considering options and the correct strategy at an early stage;
The investigation will be long, legalistic and based on statutory rules that are important to understand and follow;
The GPhC will likely contact you at various points during the investigation. Legal advice and representation will assist you with timely and appropriate engagement with the GPhC that could lead to the conclusion of the investigation at the initial enquiries stage;
Whilst Pharmacists and other pharmacy professionals can continue to work during an initial enquiries’ investigation, the GPhC can, at any point, apply for interim steps to prevent you from working. With legal advice, this can be robustly resisted and responded to; and
If the matter is referred to the full fitness to practise hearing, legal advice is highly recommended.

Kings View Barristers

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.

Contact us today for a no obligation and free telephone consultation about your case in the knowledge that you are speaking to one of the best in the business.

In upholding the appeal, Alan Bates, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, said:

Failure to assess witness credibility and reliability The panel did not sufficiently evaluate the general credibility and reliability of key witnesses, whose evidence was essential to the charges. It failed to consider factors such as contradictions between witnesses' accounts and whether their testimonies should be approached with caution. This omission undermined the panel's ability to justify its conclusions.
Lack of explanation for preferred evidence The panel failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainants' evidence over the appellant nurse's and the paramedic's. Simply stating a preference for certain witnesses' accounts without detailed justification left the appellant without a clear understanding of why her evidence was rejected.
Errors in evidence evaluation The panel assessed each charge in isolation without considering broader patterns or contextual evidence. It failed to recognize that inaccuracies in one allegation (contradicted by CCTV) could cast doubt on the reliability of witnesses' accounts in other allegations, leading to flawed conclusions.
Improper handling of contextual evidence The panel neglected to evaluate the behaviour of the complainant nurses during the investigation, which was relevant to determining their credibility. Additionally, it overlooked the appellant nurse's claims that the allegations were fabricated to remove her from her managerial position.
Insufficient reasoning for findings The panel provided inadequate reasoning for its findings of misconduct. It did not fully explain how the evidence supported its conclusions, including why the NMC had met the burden of proof for each disputed allegation. This failure left the appellant with unsubstantiated conclusions, undermining the credibility of the process.

Lessons

This case highlights several critical considerations for fitness to practise tribunals. One key lesson is the importance of thoroughly evaluating the credibility and reliability of witnesses, particularly when their testimony is central to the charges. Without such assessments, the accuracy and fairness of the tribunal’s findings can be compromised. Witness accounts must be examined not only in isolation but also in a broader context, taking into account patterns and inconsistencies to achieve a holistic evaluation.

Additionally, tribunals must provide clear and rational reasoning for their decisions. Merely preferring one witness’s account over another without detailed explanations can lead to procedural unfairness. Ensuring transparency in decision-making fosters trust in the process and supports robust outcomes. Tribunals must also maintain procedural fairness by upholding the burden of proof on the prosecuting body. Accused parties should never feel pressured to disprove allegations, as fairness is crucial to preserving the system’s integrity.

Finally, the impact of procedural delays cannot be underestimated. Prolonged proceedings can cause undue harm to the accused, affecting their career and reputation. Timely resolutions are essential to upholding justice while minimizing unnecessary stress on all parties involved. By focusing on these principles, fitness-to-practise tribunals can enhance the fairness and effectiveness of their proceedings.

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.