With the GPhC's new standards for pharmacy professionals coming into force, Marie Dancer and Wendy Hewitt examine the implications

On 12 May 2017, the General Pharmaceutical Council's (GPhC's) new standards for pharmacy professionals came into force.

The GPhC has set out the following nine new principle standards:
1. Provide person-centred care;
2. Work in partnership with others;
3. Communicate effectively;
4. Maintain, develop and use their professional knowledge and skills;
5. Use professional judgement;
6. Behave in a professional manner;
7. Respect and maintain the person's confidentiality and privacy;
8. Speak up when they have concerns or when things go wrong;
9. Demonstrate leadership.

The GPhC makes it clear that the new standards are also applicable to pharmacy professionals outside of their work. The rationale for this is said to be that their conduct both in and out of work may affect the public's perception of pharmacy professionals. This has caused some controversy within the profession, culminating in a High Court challenge by the Pharmacists' Defence Association about the legality of the new standards, given the degree of uncertainty they create. The High Court decided that the standards were legal, but issued a caution, stating that the application of the new standards needs to be rooted in common sense and real life.

Controversy
The more controversial aspect of the new standards can be found in the guidance of non-work related for standard 6, "behave in a professional manner". This appears to be an attempt to amalgamate the previous standards 1, 3 and 6, stating that pharmacy professionals must treat people with respect as well as acting with honesty and integrity. Arguably the new standards, which repeats the caution that behaving professionally is not limited to the working day, imposes a more onerous burden on registrants. The guidance includes examples of the need to be "polite and considerate." Ordinarily this may not be regarded as an unreasonable expectation. However, in the real world, pharmacy professionals are still human and no one manages to remain polite and considerate out of work all of the time.

In any event, such a threshold is highly subjective and open to interpretation. It may also be affected by cultural variances.

Nothing new
The concept of the GPhC taking fitness to practise proceedings against pharmacy professionals following an incident in their private life is nothing new. In common with other healthcare regulators, the GPhC justifies doing this where it is arguable that the integrity of the profession is otherwise at risk. A common example is when conduct which has nothing to do with a pharmacy professional's work results in the GPhC making allegations that the registrant's fitness to practise is impaired. This is sometimes where the conduct amounts to a criminal offence, although it need not reach this threshold. Examples include allegations of theft and drink driving.

In our experience, when the GPhC seeks to impose its standards on pharmacists relating to their conduct away from work, registrants frequently struggle to understand how this can impact on their work as a pharmacist. Many pharmacists have had to come to terms with this as part of the cost associated with being a regulated professional such as a pharmacist. There is a long-standing legal principle, that the public confidence in a profession takes priority over the fortunes of one individual member of a profession.

As part of the recent High Court case, the judge provided an example that a pharmacist conducting a racist tirade on a social media application would be cause for fitness to practise concern. He contrasted this with impoliteness over a family board game. The judge urged the standards to be applied with common sense.

Only time will tell how the GPhC will seek to apply the new standards in fitness to practise proceedings. We anticipate having to mount legal arguments about the implication of the new standards and are likely, in the future, to be seeking to rely on the caution urged by the High Court for the GPhC to use common sense.

Marie Dancer is a solicitor, at Richard Nelson LLP and the Medic Assistance Scheme and Wendy Hewitt is a barrister, of London chambers, 5 St Andrews Hill.

For more information on GPhC fitness to practise, take a look at Marie's online guide: www.richardnelsonllp.co.uk/fitnessto- practise/gphc-fitness-to-practise/