Nearly a year ago, C+D reported that the Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) was considering legal action against the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) because of the GPhC’s use of the term “pharmacy professionals” to refer to both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.
As reported, the PDA’s concern was that patients “must not be confused” as to the role of any healthcare workers.
The concern was heightened at the time by a change in the law that now allows pharmacy technicians to use Patient Group Directions.
Read more: PDA considers legal action over term ‘pharmacy professionals’
I wrote a blog around the same time, expressing the view that pharmacy technicians were entitled to be called professionals.
The PDA’s reference to the possibility of legal action was prompted by a case brought by the British Medical Association (BMA) against the General Medical Council (GMC).
Following a change in the law, the GMC had been given legal responsibility for registering physician associates and anaesthesia associates.
Physician associates and anaesthesia associates are not qualified doctors.
The BMA challenged the GMC’s use of the term “medical professionals” to refer to doctors, physician associates and anaesthesia associates.
The BMA also challenged the GMC’s publication of professional standards that applied to all three.
The BMA’s case against the GMC has now been decided by Mrs Justice Lambert. She rejected the BMA’s arguments.
The judge pointed out that the Medical Act 1983 makes it an offence for any person to wilfully and falsely pretend to be, or take or use the name or title of (amongst others), physician or doctor of medicine.
It also makes it an offence to use “any name, title, addition or description” implying that the person is recognised by law as a physician or surgeon or practitioner in medicine if that person is not duly registered.
Read more: Shaping the future: The evolving role of pharmacy professionals in primary care
However, the term “medical professional” is not a protected title under the Medical Act.
A physician associate or anaesthesia associate who used the term “medical professional” would not commit any offence or otherwise act unlawfully.
The judge held that “medical professional” is “an umbrella term … for members of the three different professions, who are all fairly described as medical professionals”.
The judge saw no basis for saying that it was unlawful for the GMC to publish a single guidance document for medical professionals. The GMC has an overarching objective of protecting the public.
The judge was satisfied that “in promulgating common professional standards of application to both doctors and associates, the GMC acted for the purpose of promoting patient safety.”
There does not seem to be any basis for distinguishing the BMA case from the GPhC’s use of “pharmacy professionals” as an umbrella term to include both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.
Read more: Pharmacists risk being ‘sidelined’ by pharmacy techs
In the same way that the Medical Act gives legal protection to certain titles, section 78 of the Medicines Act 1968 gives legal protection to the titles “chemist”, “pharmacist” and “fferyllydd” (its equivalent in the Welsh language) in connection with a business, and the Pharmacy Order 2010 makes it a criminal offence for a person who is not registered with the GPhC to use the titles “pharmacist”, “fferyllydd”, “pharmacy technician” and “technegydd fferylliaeth” (its equivalent in the Welsh language).
Neither the Medicines Act nor the Pharmacy Order give protection to the term “pharmacy professional”, so a pharmacy technician would not commit an offence if they refer to themselves as a “pharmacy professional”.
Like the GMC, the GPhC also has an overarching legal duty to protect the public.
The GPhC has published Standards for pharmacy professionals. In a single document, the Standards apply to both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. They are also relevant to pharmacy students.
Read more: Pharmacy tech struck off for rape of ‘vulnerable’ 13-year-old girl
As far as I can see, what the GMC says and does in relation to medical professionals is indistinguishable from what the GPhC says and does in relation to pharmacy professionals.
Notably, the GPhC also refers in places to “the pharmacy professions”, recognising that pharmacists belong to one profession, and that pharmacy technicians belong to another profession, implying that there is no longer a single pharmacy profession.
In the BMA case, the judge was alive to concern about the possibility of patients being confused. She referred to a statement in the GMC’s guidance which said: ’You should introduce yourself to patients and explain your role in their care’.
Read more: The steady evolution of pharmacy technicians
The judge said that this statement imposed a duty on medical professionals to explain their current role in the care of patients when introducing themselves.
She said that in the case of an associate, this may include explaining that they are non-medically qualified members of a multidisciplinary team working under supervision.
There is no reason why GPhC guidance cannot say that pharmacy technicians should, in appropriate cases when dealing with patients, explain that they are pharmacy technicians working in a team under supervision.
David Reissner is chair of the Pharmacy Law & Ethics Association