A registrant’s case currently has to meet one of 15 criteria before it will be sent to a committee, but these could be streamlined down to six (see below), under proposals set out in a consultation document published last week (December 14).

The consultation forms part of a “wider programme of reviewing all of the GPhC’s statutory decision-making guidance”, it said.

GPhC chief executive Duncan Rudkin said the aim of the changes is to create “a decision-making framework that ensures proportionate, fair and consistent decisions are made across all investigations”.

The 12-week consultation period will close on March 2017, with the responses to be considered when final guidance is drafted in the spring, the GPhC added.

Full details of how to respond can be found in the document here.

Current threshold criteria

Cases are not to be referred to the investigating committee unless one of the following statements is true:

Principle 1: Make patients your first concern

There is evidence that the registrant’s conduct or performance caused moderate or severe harm or death, which could and should have been avoided.

There is evidence that the registrant deliberately attempted to cause harm to patients and the public or others.

There is evidence that the registrant was reckless with the safety and wellbeing of others.

Principle 2: Use your professional judgment in the interests of patients and the public

There is evidence that the registrant put their own interests, or those of a third party, before those of their patients.

There is evidence that the registrant culpably failed to act when necessary in order to protect the safety of patients.

Principle 3: Show respect for others

There is evidence that the registrant failed to respect the human rights of patients, or demonstrated in their behaviour attitudes which are incompatible with registration as a pharmacy professional.

There is evidence that the registrant failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries in their relationship with patients and/or others.

Principle 4: Encourage patients and the public to participate in decisions about their care

There is evidence that the registrant damaged or put at significant risk the best interests of patients by failing to communicate appropriately with patients or others.

Principle 5: Develop your professional knowledge and competence

There is evidence that the registrant practised outside of their current competence.

There is evidence that the registrant failed to maintain their knowledge and skills in a field relevant to their practice.

There is evidence of a course of conduct which is likely to undermine public confidence in the profession generally or put patient safety at risk, if not challenged by the regulatory body.

Principle 6: Be honest and trustworthy

There is evidence that the registrant behaved dishonestly.

There is evidence of behaviour on the part of the registrant which is likely to undermine public confidence in the profession generally, if not challenged by the regulatory body.

Principle 7: Take responsibility for your working practices

There is evidence that the registrant has practised in a way that was systemically unsafe, or has allowed or encouraged others to do so, where he or she has responsibilities for ensuring a safe system of working.

There is evidence of adverse physical or mental health which impairs the registrant’s ability to practise safely or effectively.

If the registrar is in doubt as to whether the above criteria have been met, he shall refer the case to the investigating committee.

Revised threshold criteria

A case will not be referred to the investigating committee if…

Conduct and behaviour

…it does not present an actual or potential risk to patient or public safety

…it has not undermined, and is unlikely to undermine, confidence in the pharmacy profession

…there has not been a serious or persistent failure to meet any of the standards for pharmacy professionals, and

…it does not show that the honesty or integrity of the registrant can no longer be relied upon

Health

…there is no self-harm or risk of self-harm, and

…there is no harm or risk of harm to patients and the public.

Public interest considerations

The “public interest consideration” is an important part of the decision-making framework, the GPhC stressed last week.

This means it may also consider whether: the registrant showed remorse or insight; has taken ‘remedial’ action, for example training or changes to their practice; or whether previous advice has been issued to the registrant about the same or similar matters.

New FTP committee chair

The GPhC's fitness-to-practise committee will also have a new chair, it announced yesterday (December 19).

Michael Caplan QC was a senior partner at international law firm Kingsley Napley for 30 years, until he retired last year, it said.

Mr Caplan, who replaces previous chair Michael Simon today, has been a deputy chair of the committee since 2010, the regulator added.