The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) this week (June 24) published guidance on reforms giving the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) and other healthcare regulators “new powers” to use a “less adversarial and quicker” process for dealing with fitness-to-practise (FtP) complaints.
“The changes are aimed at allowing regulators to be more agile and efficient in protecting the public,” it said.
It comes after the Department of Health and Social Care (DH) rubberstamped plans in 2023 removing the need for regulators to seek legislative changes to update their day-to-day processes – although the reforms are yet to take effect for the GPhC.
Read more: DH rubberstamps plans giving GPhC power to set own practices
According to the PSA, the guidance – referred to as the “accepted outcomes” process – “provides pointers to help regulators decide when a case can be resolved without a public hearing”.
It advises regulators “when a hearing might be needed to maintain public confidence and ensure a robust review of the evidence”, it said.
And it also aims to help regulators determine “who should make the final decision on a case when not referring it to a hearing” and “what information to include when publishing decisions”.
“Accepted outcomes”
“Case examiners” must look at every case and decide whether “to make a determination on impairment” themselves or to “refer a case to a panel for a hearing”, the new guidance explained.
They can also refer a case to a panel after making an impairment decision “without seeking to propose an outcome”, it added.
And it stressed that regulators should consider three main factors when deciding whether to offer an “accepted outcome”:
- Is there a “dispute of fact” or conflict of evidence that can only be “fairly tested” at a hearing?
- Is there “complexity in the case” suggesting that “a hearing may be beneficial”?
- Would it be “beneficial and proportionate” to test “insight” at a hearing?
Read more: Will regulatory reforms make fitness-to-practise processes swifter and fairer?
“Resolution through an accepted outcome is likely to be swifter, less adversarial and more cost-efficient in most cases,” it added.
It said that while this is “likely to be beneficial” to registrants, they also have the “right to request that their case be referred to a hearing”.
According to the PSA, the GPhC will also be given new powers to “make and amend rules” governing the way it regulates.
Read more: GPhC admits ‘improvements needed’ in new strategy
This will give the body, and other healthcare regulators, “greater autonomy...to set out the details of their individual regulatory procedures” and allow them to “amend their own operational rules”, it added.
The PSA’s rule-making guidance sets out:
- Principles to “guide regulators to use their powers transparently”, with appropriate consultation and in a way that “prioritises public protection”
- Encouragement for regulators to consider how their use of these powers “aligns with the practice of other professional regulators, as appropriate”
“Much-needed flexibility”
This new guidance already applies to the General Medical Council (GMC) and will move onto the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and “remaining healthcare professional regulators” in due course, the PSA said.
PSA chief executive Alan Clamp said that these changes will give healthcare bodies “much-needed flexibility in how they regulate and in how they resolve concerns about professionals”.
Read more: GPhC fails FtP timeliness evaluation again as performance ‘deteriorates’
But he stressed that “the regulators are mindful that alongside these new powers sits a continued responsibility to focus on public protection”, adding that the guidance “will support good practice”.
The PSA’s latest review of the GPhC found that it failed to meet its own regulator’s standards for the timely processing of FtP cases for the sixth year running, ruling that its “timeliness has deteriorated” in September last year.
