The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has not met the healthcare super-regulator's standards relating to timeliness of fitness to practise (FtP) investigations for the sixth year in a row.
The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care (PSA) found that the GPhC met 17 out of 18 of its Standards of Good Regulation during 2023/24.
But for the sixth year running, the pharmacy regulator did not meet Standard 15 relating to timeliness of FtP investigations.
While the PSA noted that the GPhC was under 'pressure' from a 30% increase in FtP referrals since 2022, timeliness had 'deteriorated this year' and it had therefore concluded that this standard had not been met.
The PSA also suggested that the increase in referrals 'has predominantly involved low-level service complaints from members of the public which do not constitute concerns about FtP', and noted that 91% of referrals closed at triage.
It said it had written to the secretary of state for health and social care and the chair of the Health and Social Care Committee to provide an update on the regulator's performance, and would 'continue to closely monitor the GPhC’s performance in this area'.
The PSA also noted 'feedback from some stakeholders who were concerned that the GPhC was not giving registrants enough time to provide information during FtP investigations'.
'While we welcome the GPhC’s work to progress cases promptly, it needs to ensure all parties are given sufficient time to be able to effectively participate in the FTP process,' the PSA's report said.
GPhC risk-based premises inspections approach to be monitored
The PSA also responded to concerns about the GPhC’s risk-based approach to pharmacy inspections, which it introduced in 2022.
Earlier this year, the Pharmacists' Defence Association (PDA) published a report showing that the number of routine pharmacy premises inspections conducted in 2023 was a quarter of what it was in 2019 – down to 878 from 2,667.
This represented approximately 6% of the total 13,805 pharmacy premises regulated by the GPhC in 2023, prompting the PDA to comment: 'At the current rate of inspections a pharmacy premises has a probability of having a "routine" inspection once every 15-17 years.'
In its report published today, the healthcare super-regulator noted that the GPhC has said it is carrying out an end-to-end review of the inspection process and has recently improved its enforcement decision-making processes and introduced a specific check on regulatory history.
The PSA said it would 'continue to monitor the GPhC’s approach to pharmacy inspections and keep a close eye on its work to address the issues that stakeholders have raised'.
It also suggested that the regulator could improve its equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) work by requiring registrants to challenge discrimination in the way that most, but not all, other regulators do.
Responding to the PSA report, Duncan Rudkin, GPhC chief executive, said that 'ensuring a fair, proportionate, and timely resolution of fitness to practise concerns' remained 'the highest priority for everyone at the GPhC'.
'We recognise that there is some way to go but we are now seeing positive and sustained improvements in productivity and timeliness for dealing with cases, and we are confident that this will continue,' he said.
And he said he was pleased the PSA had noted that 'despite the challenges faced', the GPhC had demonstrated its 'ability to manage and mitigate potential risk' through its interim order process, 'as well as retaining all other standards', including those relating to accessibility and the fairness and quality of its decision making.
'We are also making significant reductions in our overall caseload,' Mr Rudkin noted.
'This is a clear reflection of the dedication and hard work of our teams across the GPhC. Our council will continue to hold us to account as we work towards achieving the standard for timeliness, as well as continuing to meet all other standards for good regulation,' he said.
Have your say
Please add your comment in the box below. You can include links, but HTML is not permitted. Please note that comments are not moderated before publication and the views expressed are those of the user and do not reflect the views of The Pharmacist. Remember that submission of comments is governed by our Terms and Conditions. You can also read our full guidelines on article comments here – but please be aware that you are legally liable for any libellous or offensive comments that you make. If you have a complaint about a comment or are concerned that a comment breaches our terms and conditions, please use the ‘Report this comment’ function to alert our web team.