The professional Standards Authority (PSA) have said that they have concerns over ‘transparency and fairness’ of some of the GPhC’s fitness to practice processes.
The GPhC did meet 20 out of 24 standards of Good Regulations in 2018 to 2019 in the independent statutory body review, however, the PSA raised questions over the following;
- The timeliness of the investigations being conducted
- Customer service provided to parties involved in the fitness to practice cases
- The quality and record keeping
- Decision making at the initial stages of the fitness to practice processes
The PSA reviewed 63 fitness to practice cases that were closed by the GPhC between March 2018 and February 2019. On analysis of their audit, it was found that the GPhC failed to meet standards 5, 6, 7 and 8 for fitness to practice between 2018/19.
PSA found that 63% of the cases were closed at the triage stage of the fitness to practice which is much higher than those closed at the same stage by other regulators.
It was the PSA’s view that the GPhC were ‘departing’ from their own, internal guidance, which states that it ‘only considers whether a case falls within its jurisdiction at the early stages of the triage process’. The PSA believes that the GPhC ‘considers factors beyond whether a complaint is within its jurisdiction when triaging cases’.
The PSA identified a small number of cases where they disagreed with a decision to close the case at the triage stage and was not sufficient enough to suggest that the GPhC processes pose a barrier to concerns being raised.
The audit found that expected improvement has not materialised as they expected it should. However, according to the PSA the GPhC have committed to improving its timelines of its fitness to practice processes.
The PSA also raised concerns over the GPhC’s customer service. They state that 75% out of the 63 cases reviewed, showed that the parties had not been updated regularly or the process of the investigation had not been clearly explained to them.
The PSA also found that there were flaws or unclear reasoning of the decision making around the triage, investigation and investigating committee stages. They could not conclude that decisions made under review were well reasoned and consistent. The GPhC agreed that they need to make further improvements in some areas of their fitness to practice processes and they have put together an action plan ‘as a priority’ to address the issues raised.