Reports of fitness to practise cases invariably arouse strong feelings. Sometimes pharmacists who read about them are angry that a pharmacist appears to have been dealt with unduly harshly or, alternatively, a pharmacist appears to have been dealt with unduly leniently by the GPhC's Fitness to Practise Committee.
Sometimes, the cases that provoke a reaction are those where the pharmacist has not done anything wrong in relation to the practice of pharmacy. For example, a pharmacist was recently warned over his failure to disclose speeding tickets; and another pharmacist was struck off because of domestic violence. It is important to bear in mind that the test the Fitness to Practise Committee applies is whether the pharmacist's fitness to practise is impaired. A key consideration is whether the behaviour of the pharmacist might bring the profession of pharmacist into disrepute. The FtP Committee will take into account a number of factors, including the perception of the public and their view of the pharmacy profession. For example, the public might take a dim view of a profession whose members are allowed by the regulator to flout the law. Similarly, acts of violence cannot be condoned, so the regulator cannot avoid considering whether violent people should be allowed to practise. The fact that the violence occurred in a domestic setting does not make it any less serious.
While the GPhC has to look into allegations, Parliament has imposed limits on its investigatory powers. In my view, the GPhC's powers are more than adequate to enable it to fulfil its functions, including the ability to make test purchases. Nevertheless, perhaps embarrassed by the BBC Inside Out programme in which undercover filming took place in pharmacies, the GPhC has asked the Department of Health for extensive powers to carry out intrusive surveillance, including powers that might enable its inspectors to bug the homes of pharmacists. In my view, this would be several steps too far. Some pharmacists, like members of other professions, may occasionally break the law, and there should be adequate powers to investigate this so that the GPhC can take appropriate action, but its powers should be proportionate to the profession of pharmacy, rather than the powers the police need to deal with drug barons.
When the FtP Committee decides to take action, the GPhC sometimes announces the outcome to the press. In some cases, it is perfectly proper to warn the profession of unacceptable activity, or to let the public know how the GPhC is protecting them. However, there have been some recent cases when the Fitness to Practise Committee has found that a case should not have been brought in the first place. In one case, it appears that the GPhC had in its possession a prescription that, on its own, was sufficient to exonerate a pharmacist who had probably suffered many months of anguish, waiting for a hearing. In another case, the FtP Committee decided that the pharmacist had no case to answer because there were flaws in the investigation process, and the evidence did not support the allegations
When the Royal Pharmaceutical Society was the regulator, pharmacists often complained that they were persecuted by an organisation to which they belonged. I still encounter pharmacists who think the General Pharmaceutical Council is just the new name of the RPSGB. It isn't, of course. The GPhC has no members and its entire focus is on the public. However, I have often heard Duncan Rudkin say that the GPhC wants to work with pharmacists. In my view, this means that the GPhC should do more to explain itself and its decisions, and to involve pharmacists in its processes. An increased level of engagement would be the best way win and maintain pharmacists' confidence that the GPhC is on the right track.
In the same way that the GPhC expects pharmacists to maintain public confidence by owning up to errors, displaying insight and apologising for errors, the GPhC could do more to maintain the confidence of pharmacists. Instead of trumpeting in the press only a few of the cases in which severe sanctions have been imposed, the GPhC could gain the respect of its doubters in the profession by owing up and apologising when it gets things wrong.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
