2022-10-04 11:01:49
The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) has just published its performance review of the General Pharmaceutical Council for 2021-2022 (to which PLEA contributed). Our summary is below. You can find the full review here https://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/publications/performance-review-detail/monitoring-report-gphc-2021-22
Key PSA findings
These include:
- “Concerns have been raised about whether the GPhC’s remit and approach to pharmacy inspections sufficiently address the risks in this area.”
- “The GPhC completed the action plan it developed to address [the PSA’s] concerns about its fitness to practise function. It also launched its new fitness to practise strategy. [The PSA] recognise[s] the GPhC’s continued commitment to address [the PSA’s] concerns and the direction of travel remains positive. However, the timing of activities this year, coupled with the time it takes to demonstrate the impact of changes, means [the PSA] have not yet seen tangible evidence that our remaining concerns have been addressed.” [Since the changes made by the GPhC could not be assessed by the time the PSA review was completed, the PSA could not yet say whether all its standards had been met by the GPhC.]
GPhC Standards and enforcement
The PSA identified instances of pharmacies that were found to meet the GPhC’s Standards at the same time that the GPhC was taking enforcement action against those pharmacies. The GPhC explained there are several different circumstances where this situation might arise. The PSA concluded that the GPhC’s approach was a reasonable and proportionate way of managing the risks, but encouraged the GPhC to consider publishing information to explain why some pharmacies have met the Standards but are still subject to enforcement action.
Pharmacy inspections
The PSA had received feedback that raised concerns about whether the GPhC’s remit and approach to pharmacy inspections address the risks arising in this area. Examples included:
- concerns that an investigation handled by the corporate owner of a pharmacy did not fall within the GPhC’s remit;
- clinical checks on prescriptions issued in instalments for periods up to 12 months not being carried out as they should be;
- the use of artificial intelligence to replace pharmacist checks. [The PSA review does not provide any information about this intriguing piece of feedback it received].
The GPhC told the PSA that it was engaging with these concerns and responding to them by exploring how it can address them, both in the short and long term. The PSA will be monitoring how the GPhC responds and manages the risks identified.
Fitness to Practise (FtP)
The GPhC had made and was making changes to its FtP processes. The PSA concluded it was too early to assess these changes. It was pleased to see the GPhC introduce new Initial assessment guidance as it more accurately reflected the GPhC’s triage process, but had yet to see evidence that the GPhC had fully addressed the PSA’s concerns about:
- the transparency and clarity of its triage process and the impact of this on the fairness of the process and the quality of triage decisions;
- the quality of threshold criteria decisions;
- the timeliness of fitness to practise investigations;
- the support provided to parties to participate in the process.
The PSA found that the GPhC was still taking too long to progress fitness to practise investigations. The median time for progressing a case to a final FtP hearing had risen to more than 126 weeks. Other timings had not significantly improved and remained above 2019/20 levels. For example, it took about 63 weeks to decide whether a concern or complaint should be referred to the Investigating Committee. Amongst other measures to address the delays, the GPhC is engaging external law firms to provide direction on complex cases. In the past, feedback from PLEA members has been that the GPhC’s use of external law firms is less than ideal because those law firms lack knowledge of pharmacy law and practice.
The PSA noted that the GPhC has been working to improve the support it provides to those involved in the FtP process since the PSA reported concerns about this area in its 2018/19 report. Although the GPhC had implemented a range of changes to improve “customer service”, including the launch of its new fitness to practise strategy, the PSA was “not yet assured that [its] concerns have been fully addressed.”