The latest Professional Standards Authority (PSA) review of the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has found it is failing in 4 professional standards.

The GPhC’s fitness to practise processes and procedures did not meet all the PSA’ Standards of Good Regulation.

The PSA found that the GPhC did not comply in the following areas:

• the transparency and fairness of some of the fitness to practise processes being followed
• the timeliness of the investigations being conducted
• the customer service provided to parties involved in fitness to practise cases
• the quality of record-keeping
• the decision-making at the initial stages of the fitness to practise process

Transparency and fairness

“Through our audit of closed cases we established that the GPhC is not complying with its own guidance.”

The PSA raised concerns that the GPhC’s new threshold criteria

• The clarity of the revised criteria and how transparently they would be applied
• A risk that cases which may meet the realistic prospect test are closed prematurely, potentially resulting in risks to the protection of the public
• A lack of scrutiny and transparent oversight of decisions being made.

The PSA commented that it: “…consider that when a process departs from the guidance in place…this has the potential to impact on the transparency of the process being followed for both registrants and the public.

“Our findings about the transparency of these processes meant that we could not be assured that the processes in place were fair, particularly in circumstances where a registrant is invited by the GPhC to agree to undertakings or to a warning on the basis of incomplete information.”

Initial stages of the fitness to practise process

“…the proportion of cases closed by the GPhC at the initial stages of its fitness to practise process was high, and this gave rise to a concern that the GPhC may be closing cases prematurely or inappropriately.”

The PSA found that there were “some cases where we [PSA] considered that the triage or investigation decision had been made prematurely because in our view there were further reasonable enquiries that could have been undertaken by the GPhC to enable a more informed decision to be made.

“Our audit identified concerns about other aspects of all three decision-making stages where we thought that reasoning was flawed, lacking or unclear or the outcome appeared contrary to the GPhC’s current guidance.”

The PSA report highlights several areas requiring improvement.  

• improving record-keeping about fitness to practise cases
• updating internal guidance on triaging cases, including our approach to issuing pre-investigating committee undertakings or informal guidance and warnings to pharmacy professionals
• improving timeliness in progressing fitness to practise cases
• improving communications with people involved in cases
• improving reasoning for decisions at each stage

GPhC’s response

GPhC Chief Executive Duncan Rudkin said:

“We are committed to using this feedback from the PSA to reflect, learn and work together so that we take forward the changes and improvements needed.

“We agree with the PSA’s assessment that we need to make improvements in some areas of our Fitness to Practise processes. We have put in place an action plan to make sure that these improvements are taken forward as a priority and embedded over the longer term. We will regularly review our progress against the action plan and report on this to our Council.

“We will also shortly begin a consultation on our Fitness to Practise strategy, which will provide an opportunity for a fundamental review of our approach to fitness to practise and how it needs to change to make it as proportionate, person-centred and effective as possible. We want to hear from as many individuals and organisations as possible through that consultation.”