2022-02-08 16:53:36
The Professional Standards Authority has just published its review of the General Pharmaceutical Council’s performance for the period 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. The full report is here https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/docs/default-source/publications/performance-reviews/performance-review-gphc-2020-21.pdf?sfvrsn=b32d4820_6
You may remember that we have reported in previous years on deficiencies found by the PSA. In the year under review, the GPhC was found to have met all standards in all areas except (again) Fitness to Practise where only two out of five standards were met.
Criticisms of GPhC rejected
Amongst other things, the PSA rejected criticisms of the GPhC’s statement on profiteering during the pandemic and rejected criticisms of the GPhC’s advice not to sell rapid antibody tests because, the PSA found) the GPhC was following the guidance at the time and its actions were directly relevant to its role in protecting the public.
Triage processes
Many of the PSA’s concern about Fitness to Practise centred on the GPhC’s triage process. Owing to the PSA’s significant queries about the robustness of the GPhC’s triage process in previous years, the PSA conducted a targeted review because it wanted to understand if the high proportion of cases closed at triage and low proportion of decisions made by the Investigating Committee indicated that cases were closed sooner than was appropriate.
The PSA’s audit allayed concern that cases were being closed inappropriately, but inconsistencies were found between the GPhC’s internal guidance on triaging cases and what happened in practice. This meant that different thresholds may be applied to triage decisions. This is not transparent and does not appear to support a consistent understanding of what factors can or should be considered when making triage decisions.
Reasons for triage decisions were not recorded in 40% of the triage decisions that were examined. This resulted in a lack of transparency, leaving uncertainty about consistency in decision-making.
The PSA considered that most outcomes were reasonable, but some decisions were based on flawed reasoning.
Threshold criteria
The GPhC applies threshold criteria to decide whether to refer a case to the Investigating Committee. In just over half of the cases examined by the PSA, the reasons for the decision were not always fully and accurately recorded or they were flawed in some way. For example, in some cases it was recorded that there was a lack of evidence when there was a conflict of evidence.
Communication with parties
Communication with parties remains a problem. Parties are still not routinely updated on the investigation and not always notified of the outcome of their cases.
Delays
The time taken for the GPhC to progress cases had been identified as an issue in previous years and the GPhC had adopted an action plan to address this. Despite the action plan, the time period was deteriorating before the pandemic, and timeliness declined again in 2020/21. The PSA concluded that it did not know whether it would have seen improvements in timeliness had it not been for the pandemic and noted that the deterioration in timeliness is significant with some timeframes increasing by nearly 20 weeks or more.
Cases where there is a serious risk to the safety of patients or service users
The PSA was satisfied that the GPhC met its standard in relation to cases where there was a serious risk to the safety of patients or service users. However, it noted that there was a delay in applying for an interim order, such as a suspension, in one case because the recommendation for an application was missed. In another case, an interim order lapsed because it was not reviewed in time. In two linked cases we have previously reported on, the High Court refused an application to extend the interim order because of delays by the GPhC.