Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Join

Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Law

PDA launches judicial review over GPhC standards for pharmacy professionals

The Pharmacists’ Defence Association says the standards — which apply to pharmacists at all times, in and out of work — infringe on an individual’s human rights.

The Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) has launched a judicial review against the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) over its draft standards for pharmacy professionals, which the union has criticised in the past.

A line in the standards document says they “need to be met at all times, not only during working hours”, which has drawn the ire of the PDA, a not-for-profit organisation that works to improve the status and working environment for individual pharmacists, and appears to be the subject of the judicial review.

The PDA first criticised the draft standards’ tone and vocabulary in July 2016. “The wording of the new standards is reminiscent of the language used by large corporate employers and is somewhat Orwellian in nature,” it said.

The standards were approved by the GPhC’s council in October 2016 and are expected to take effect in 2017 and apply to both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.

However, because the new standards are to apply to pharmacists at all times, the PDA believes that some of the requirements infringe an individual’s human rights.

Mark Koziol, chair of the PDA

Source: Pharmacists’ Defence Association

Mark Koziol says the GPhC’s standards are “a step too far” and the PDA has no choice but to challenge them in court

Mark Koziol, chair of the PDA, says: “We have no issue with the concept that certain behaviours outside of a working environment may be subject to regulatory action. However, if the standards are to apply at all times, they must be proportionate and appropriate.

“The new standards impose requirements about body language, tone of voice and politeness at all times, not only during working hours; they are a step too far and will be of concern to many pharmacists.”

He explained that the PDA made its views known to the GPhC in response to the standards consultation but that this did not result in a change to the standards. “This left the PDA with no option other than to challenge the GPhC in the courts,” he says.

Koziol adds that in relation to use of appropriate body language, tone of voice and politeness while outside of work, “the standards are such that they widen the scope of employers and the GPhC to use them as the basis to discipline pharmacists in the future. There is no question that they need to be challenged”.

A date for the hearing has been set for 23 March 2017 and will be held in the administrative court of the High Court in Birmingham.

Duncan Rudkin, chief executive of the GPhC

Source: General Pharmaceutical Council

Duncan Rudkin said in a statement that the GPhC is ready for the judicial review and will explain why pharmacy should adhere to the standards at all times

In a statement, Duncan Rudkin, chief executive of the GPhC, said: “The standards will have an important role in setting out what is expected of pharmacy professionals and it is right that they can be scrutinised and challenged before they come into effect.

“This judicial review of the standards relates to an important point of principle within health professional regulation. We are ready to respond to the judicial review and explain why pharmacy professionals should be expected to meet the standards at all times.”

According to the GPhC, the court has ordered that the hearing should be expedited and “rolled up”, meaning that if a judge decides to give permission for a full hearing, then it will immediately hear the case on that day.

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2017.20202459

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Supplementary images

  • General Pharmaceutical Council signage
  • Mark Koziol, chair of the PDA
  • Duncan Rudkin, chief executive of the GPhC

Jobs you might like

See more jobs

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.