2022-12-20 16:22:50
The GPhC is currently conducting a consultation on sanctions in discrimination cases https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/document/discussion-paper-on-supporting-good-decision-making-at-hearings-december-2022.pdf
In general, the GPhC proposes that discrimination should result in sanctions at the upper end of the scale.
The consultation paper says that health and social care regulators have been criticised by the Professional Standards Authority for not taking racism and discriminatory behaviour seriously enough and for underestimating the impact that these concerns are having on public confidence and trust in the professions that they regulate – see PLEA News for 20 September 2022. The PSA called for regulators to review how their fitness to practise processes, including their indicative sanctions guidance, deal with allegations of racist and other discriminatory behaviour.
Work that the GPhC is carrying out, or plans to do, includes:
- an exercise to make data anonymous at the investigating committee stage
- improving its data to understand more about potential disproportionate representation in the referrals we receive and
- publishing diversity data about fitness to practise concerns
The GPhC’s aims are to be clear about:
- how seriously concerns of this nature need to be taken, and
- how fitness to practise decision-makers should, when deciding on an outcome, take into account the seriousness of any discriminatory behaviour
Under revised sanctions guidance (which will be renamed as ‘hearings and outcomes guidance’):
- Decision makers should assess the conduct that led to the concern. They should consider whether the conduct itself, and the risks it could pose, can be remedied (‘remediated’) by the professional taking steps such as completing training courses or having supervised practice. However, in cases where displaying discriminatory views and behaviour – for example, incidents of harassment, discrimination or victimisation – is proved, the conduct is unlikely to be remediated. That means it may not be possible to deal with the issue through steps such as training courses or supervision at work. A committee will, however, take account of any steps the professional has taken to remediate when deciding on the appropriate outcome. And, although discriminatory behaviour may not be remediable, any steps on the part of the professional may affect the outcome.
- When considering insight and remorse, a committee will need to be satisfied that behaviour of this nature has been addressed. It would expect to see comprehensive insight and remorse from an early stage, which deals with the specific concerns that have been raised. Also, it must be satisfied that discriminatory views and behaviour are no longer present. This is so that members of the public can be confident that there is no risk of repetition. Therefore, when a pharmacy professional displays discriminatory views and behaviour, and it has been proved, it will amount to a serious breach of our professional standards. An outcome from the upper end of the scale (suspension or removal) will be likely to be needed to maintain public trust and confidence.
- The existing guidance on sexual misconduct, dishonesty and failures to be open and honest – often referred to as the professional duty of candour – will be strengthened this guidance by adding a section on discrimination.
- To be fair to everyone, committees need to consider the differences in cultural expressions, including those when expressing regret or remorse, and the shame that an investigation can raise in some communities. If not, decision makers may mistakenly think pharmacy professionals have no insight and may conclude that these professionals’ fitness to practise is impaired.
The consultation is open until 31 January 2023. The PLEA Executive intends to respond to it. We will welcome any comments or suggested responses to the consultation questions by 4pm on 20 January 2023. Comments or suggestions should be emailed to davidreissner1@gmail.com