GPhC Voluntary Agreements – Worth Considering?

A voluntary agreement is an arrangement between the GPhC and a pharmacy professional that seeks to allow the pharmacy professional to continue to practise, but with agreed requirements in place.

What is GPhC fitness to practise?

To remain on the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) register, pharmacists 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 pharmacists’ fitness to practise may be impaired. A pharmacists’ 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.

GPhC Voluntary Agreements – Overview

A voluntary agreement is an arrangement between the GPhC and a pharmacist that seeks to allow them to continue to practise, but with agreed requirements in place. Voluntary agreements are normally considered at the conclusion of the GPhC’s initial enquiries stage before the formal committee stage (an Investigation Committee).

The GPhC’s guidance states that it will “only consider an agreement where it is adequate to assure patient safety and is an appropriate and proportionate outcome” and each agreement will be specific to each individual case.

The criteria applied by the GPhC when deciding if it is appropriate to offer an agreement are:

that patients and the public will be protected
an effective and proportionate way of dealing with the concerns about the pharmacy professional there is evidence of a pharmacy professional’s willingness to respond positively to restrictions and oversight, and to work with the GPhC
a risk or potential risk to patient safety remains, if the condition is not appropriately managed
the pharmacy professional has sufficient insight into any health problems or conduct
there is evidence that the pharmacy professional has been open and honest
the pharmacy professional, although not currently impaired, requires some support to enable them to practise safely and effectively
the agreement is a fair and a proportionate response to the risk that exists
the absence of an agreement could lead to a risk developing in future

GPhC Voluntary Agreements are in place for six months. The agreement may be extended for a maximum of six months if “it is appropriate to do so”. If the matter is not resolved at the end of this second period, the GPhC said it “may consider alternative action”, including referral to its Investigation Committee (IC).

Considerations for pharmacists

Although Voluntary Agreements are entirely voluntary in nature, pharmacists need to carefully consider their position and seek legal advice. When considering a Voluntary Agreement, there are a number of things for pharmacists to consider:

it will not be offered if the pharmacy professional has previously broken any previous agreements;
pharmacists have the right to reply and submit evidence, both during the investigation stage and during the life of the agreement;
the GPhC will notify the person that raised the concern of the outcome and may disclose details to your employer, “or other relevant third party”; and
an agreement does not mean the matter is resolved. If there is evidence that the agreement has not been effective or not adhered to, the GPhC may refer the case to its Investigation Committee.

Insight & Remediation

The GPhC’s guidance states that it “will not normally consider an agreement if … the pharmacy professional has not demonstrated insight”.

Reflection is about serious thought or consideration of the circumstances that lead to a things going wrong. Insight is learning from this reflection to gain an accurate and deep understanding of steps necessary to, one, ensure mistakes are not repeated and, two, address the consequences.

Insight can also be demonstrated through training and training courses. 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.

Seeking Legal Advice

The GPhC recommends that a “Pharmacy professionals may want to contact … [a] legal representative before deciding to enter into an agreement”. A voluntary agreement should not be considered lightly, and a pharmacist should carefully consider their position for a number of reasons:

Making an agreement does not mean that the pharmacist has admitted their practice is impaired. Legal advice will advise pharmacists on whether a Voluntary Agreement is appropriate for their individual case. In certain cases, where the issues are in dispute or contested, a pharmacist may wish to have their case considered by an Investigation Committee.
Where a Voluntary Agreement is appropriate, a pharmacist needs to ensure that the wording is clear, proportionate and understood. Legal advice can assist and advise on the wording of an agreement prior to the agreement.
Legal advice can also be important when insight and remediation are considered. Achieving and evidencing insight can take a long time to achieve and form part of a wider strategy agreed with a pharmacist.
Voluntary Agreements can hold reputational damage and other adverse implications for pharmacists. Details of agreements can be shared with employers, patients and “other third parties”. This further points to the need and importance of seeking legal advice. The right strategy and approach will consider mitigation steps to limit exposure and any reputational damage.

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.