The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has voted to accept changes to its fitness-to-practice (FtP) hearings and outcomes guidance at its council meeting last week (December 7), it has confirmed.
According to the papers prepared for the meeting, the changes were proposed to clarify how the GPhC deals with “concerns about discrimination” in its FtP hearings and guide “how decisions are made and the outcomes that committees can decide on”.
Read more: GPhC: Non-white pharmacists ‘over-represented’ in FtP concerns
Two areas of change were proposed - the first to “strengthen” its approach in cases that involved “discrimination, harassment and bullying” and the other to add to the “cultural factors” that panels should consider when deciding a case’s outcome.
On Friday (December 8), a spokesperson for the GPhC confirmed to C+D that the council had voted to agree to the revised guidance.
Read more: RPS England chair urges action ‘now’ after ‘watershed’ racism report
The papers said that a recent publication from regulator’s regulator the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) had encouraged regulators to “review” how FtP processes “address allegations of racist and other discriminatory behaviour”.
But they stressed that work to change GPhC guidance began “before the publication of the PSA report”.
Expressions of apology
Among other changes, an FtP committee should now consider whether incidents under consideration were affected by those involved being “the victims of discrimination”, the papers said.
They should also now consider whether “cultural differences” or “personal circumstances” may affect expressions of apology, particularly in the case of second-language English speakers or neurodiverse people, they added.
The guidance also now provides information about “the weight of testimonials”, definitions of types of discrimination and “further examples” of the contexts during which discrimination can occur, they said.
Read more: Tribunal: Boots pharmacist faced racial harassment and unfair dismissal
In November 2022, the GPhC launched a consultation on the changes that ended in January this year and received 218 written responses.
According to the council papers, prepared by GPhC interim director of fitness to practise Hannah Fellows and its senior policy and planning manager Jerome Mallon, most respondents to the consultation supported both areas of the proposed changes.
Read more: ‘Saluting our sisters’: Celebrating Black women in pharmacy
They said that more than three-quarters (76%) of respondents agreed with the proposed text on discrimination, while two-thirds (66%) agreed with the proposed text on cultural factors to be included in the guidance.
Upon the consultation’s close, a council “subgroup” discussed the “feedback” and suggested edits to the proposed changes, some of which were included in the guidance that was passed in the council meeting.
“Lead by example”
“It is vital that we lead by example when tackling all forms of discrimination,” the GPhC said, adding that it has a “responsibility” to ensure that its “processes, policies and guidance are clear” and that it takes any concerns raised with it “seriously”.
The regulator said that it also wants to ensure it is “tackling any potential bias in [its] decisions and that they are fair”.
It follows an admission from the GPhC in October that white pharmacists were under-represented in FtP concerns it received in 2021/22, while non-white pharmacists were over-represented.
Read more: Removal ‘likely’ – GPhC cracks down on racism with new FtP proposals
GPhC chair Gisela Abbam said at the time that there was “no doubt that racism in pharmacy continues to be an issue”.
She stressed that as the regulatory body that is “accountable for doing the right thing and making fair decisions”, the GPhC needs “to tackle this together and in a sustained way”.
And it comes after the first-ever Pharmacy Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) report last month found that “pharmacy team members of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) origin” faced “more harassment, bullying and abuse” and “poorer career progression” than white colleagues.
