Section One: General Information: 1.1 Name of person completing this assessment: Janet Flint, Postregistration Manager, General Pharmaceutical Council Christine Gray, Head of Corporate Governance, General Pharmaceutical Council Function: Equality and Diversity Contact Tel No: Janet Flint, Postregistration Manager, 020 3365 3542 Christine Gray, Head of Corporate Governance, 020 3365 3503 1.2 Title of policy, service, function or project being assessed: (Referred to hereafter as The Policy.) The draft General Pharmaceutical Council (Continuing Professional Development and Consequential Amendments) Rules 2011 Copy of policy attached to this assessment - please tick Page 1 of 27
Section One: General Information: 1.3 Is this policy: New Existing Proposed Changing When was it issued? (01/11/10) Please list below any other policies or documents that are either related to the policy being assessed or are referred to within this assessment: The Pharmacy Order 2010, article 43 Standards for Continuing Professional Development Framework for Continuing Professional Development Page 2 of 27
Section One: General Information (continued): 1.4 What are the principal aims of the policy being assessed? For example, why does this exist within the GPhC and what is it designed to achieve? The GPhC s obligations in respect of continuing professional development (CPD) are set out in article 43 of the Pharmacy Order 2010. Sub-paragraph(4)(a) of article 43 places an obligation on the Council to adopt and maintain a framework for CPD and paragraph (7) of the same article places a further obligation on the Council to make provision in rules for dealing with registrants who fail to comply with any framework requirements. The CPD rules detail the circumstances in which a registrant is to be regarded as having failed to comply with the requirements and conditions of the CPD framework and the steps that the Registrar can take on being satisfied that a registrant has failed to comply, or has made a false declaration about their CPD. These are To require a registrant to take remedial measures to make up any deficiencies; or To remove a register entry or to remove an annotation relating to a register entry. The GPhC envisages that the majority of registrants who fail to comply will, in the first instance, be asked to undertake remedial measures to make up any deficiencies. However the GPhC considers that there will be some circumstances, for example if a registrant fails to submit a record when requested to do so, in which issuing a notice of intention to remove a register entry or annotation would be an appropriate first step. The rules detail the procedure that the Registrar must follow if he proposes to remove a registrant s entry or annotation from the Register. Page 3 of 27
Section One: General Information (continued): 1.5 List the main activities of the policy being assessed. For example, what does it involve? Are there any key milestones or achievements that can be measured as a result of its implementation? Registrants will be considered to have failed to comply with the requirements and conditions of the CPD framework if they have failed to make an annual declaration that they will comply with the requirements and conditions of the CPD framework; their CPD record has been called for review but they have failed to submit their CPD record by the deadline given; the information the registrant has recorded about their CPD has not been recorded in the manner specified in the CPD framework; the number of entries in the registrant s CPD record is insufficient; there are insufficient entries in a CPD record that are relevant to the safe and effective practice of pharmacy or the registrant s scope of practice, including any specialisations or the environment in which they practise; they have submitted a CPD record which is illegible or is not in a fit and proper state to be reviewed; their CPD record does not adequately reflect any special conditions that have been placed on their practice by the GPhC, for example by the Fitness to Practise Committee or by the Registrar if their registration has been restored following removal. The range of remedial measures that the Registrar can impose in circumstances in which a registrant has failed to comply with the framework requirements would include: requiring registrants to make additional entries in their CPD record to reflect activities they have undertaken; requiring registrants to make or redraft entries their CPD record so that they are in the required format; requiring registrants to undertake additional CPD activities; and requiring registrants to undertake additional CPD activities in a specific area, for example relating to a registrant s current scope of practice, a specialisation or the environment in which they work. The rules would also allow the Registrar to remove a person s entry from the register or remove an annotation to their entry if that person had failed to comply with the framework requirements or had made a false declaration about their compliance. Page 4 of 27
The rules detail the procedure that the Registrar must follow if he proposes to remove a registrant s entry or annotation from the register. The Registrar may refer the matter to the Fitness to Practise Committee if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the registrant s fitness to practise is impaired. If the Registrar does not refer the matter, he must send the registrant a notice of intention to remove the register entry or annotation giving the registrant 28 days in which to submit written representations and to indicate whether they wish the matter to be considered at a hearing. Where no representations are received within the 28 day period, the register entry or annotation may be removed. If representations are received from the registrant the Registrar must consider the evidence received and either make a determination as to whether or not the registrant has failed to comply with the framework requirements or made a false declaration; or if the registrant has requested a hearing, refer the matter to the Fitness to Practise Committee. If the Registrar determines that the registrant did not fail to comply or make a false declaration, he must close the matter. Where the Registrar has decided that the registrant has failed to comply or made a false declaration, and determines to remove a registrant s register entry or annotation, the Registrar must write to the registrant giving notice of the removal, the reasons for it and the registrant s right of appeal to the Appeals Committee. Page 5 of 27
Section One: General Information (continued): 1.6 Who does this policy involve and affect? Consider both the internal (employment) and external aspects. For example, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, pharmacy owners, patients, organisations or members of the public, council members, GPhC employees and others who have dealings with the GPhC. The policy will affect all registered pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. It may have an impact on: employers of registrants and pharmacy owners patients and members of the public professional bodies that represent registrants commissioners of the services of registrants persons or bodies providing, assessing or funding the education and training of registrants. Implementation of the policy will involve: The Registrar CPD and registration teams CPD reviewers appointed by the GPhC Fitness to practise team. Page 6 of 27
1.7 What are the key performance indicators of this policy? Key indicators are that the circumstances in which a registrant will be considered to have failed to comply with the requirements and conditions of the CPD framework are defined and that the procedures for dealing with registrants who fail to comply with the requirements and conditions of the GPhC s CPD framework or make a false declaration about compliance are fair and robust. Page 7 of 27
Section One: General Information (continued): 1.8 Was any Equalities Research Data utilised? Yes No Equalities Research Data is internal or external information available (in relation to equality) that was taken into account in the development or implementation of the policy being assessed. Examples might include internal employment information, staff or registrant surveys or research, information from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission etc. Where you believe there are gaps in research please state what further research could or should be undertaken. Please include your recommendations within the Further Actions section of this document (section 4). Please list any Equalities Research Data used below: No specific equalities research was undertaken. However the GPhC was able to draw on the evaluation of a 2008 pilot of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society s (RPSGB s) CPD call and review process involving over 900 registrants which was undertaken by the Welsh School of Pharmacy. The GPhC was also able to draw on the RPSGB s actual experience of running the process of calling and reviewing registrants CPD records which started in July, 2009. A recommendation for the Council would be to capture and analyse the profile (by equality groups) of all registrants who fail to comply with the requirements and conditions of the CPD framework. It is recommended that this information is captured and analysed by: reasons for failure to comply the decisions reached by the Registrar about whether to impose remedial measures or to give notice of removal of a register entry or annotation the range of remedial measures imposed compliance with any remedial measures imposed. Page 8 of 27
Capturing this data would allow the Council to ascertain whether any trends in terms of equality exist and, where trends are identified, to consider what actions may need to take place to positively promote equality and to remove or alleviate any adverse impacts. For example if the majority of registrants who failed to comply with the requirements and conditions of the CPD framework had particular characteristics such as being female or within a particular age group, the Council would need to be aware of this fact and consider if any proactive measures would be appropriate e.g. targeted education and training on how to record CPD for these groups. Page 9 of 27
Section One: General Information (continued): 1.9 Who has been, or will be, consulted in the development or implementation of the policy being assessed? Consultation should be with representatives of groups affected or directly involved. Please refer to Section 1.6 of this document. The Council has published (in accordance with the Pharmacy Order 2010) a set of draft rules which are currently the subject of consultation with the people most likely to be affected by the introduction of any new rules. There is a legal requirement (as part of the Pharmacy Order) for the Council to consult such persons or organisations that it considers appropriate before making rules under Parts 3-7 of the Order. The Council must consult: registrants employers of registrants and pharmacy owners the users of the services of registrants professional bodies that represent registrants commissioners of the services of registrants persons or bodies providing, assessing or funding the education and training of registrants. Page 10 of 27
Section Two: Screening Impact: Assessing Positive Impact Please tick Yes or No to the initial questions below 2.1 Could this policy have a major impact (positive, negative or differential) on members of the public, patients, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, pharmacy owners, or any other GPhC stakeholders? Yes No 2.2 Could this policy, service, project or function impact positively or differentially on any other different groups of people that have contact with the GPhC? Yes No If you have answered Yes to either of the above questions, please complete Section 2.3 of this document, otherwise, please proceed to Section 2.4. Page 11 of 27
Section Two: Screening Impact (continued) : Assessing Positive Impact 2.3 How does the policy impact positively on the following groups? Group: Evidence: Race Gender The policy has a positive impact on people drawn from all equality groups in that the review of registrants CPD records provides a kite mark that registrants continue to meet the standards for CPD set by the Council. Disability Sexual Orientation Religion / Belief Age Different Socio and Economic Groups Please now proceed to Section 2.5 Page 12 of 27
Section Two: Screening Impact (continued) : 2.4 Please state why, in your assessment, you consider that the policy is likely to have no Positive Impact on Equality Groups. Please attach evidence to support your assessment. Not applicable. Page 13 of 27
Section Two: Screening Impact (continued) : Assessing Adverse Impact Please tick Yes or No to the following questions and where available, provide evidence to support your answers. 2.5 Could this policy impact adversely 2 or differentially on different equality groups 3? Yes No Do people from different equalities groups have different expectations and needs of or from this policy? Yes No Is there evidence that any part of the policy could discriminate unlawfully either directly or indirectly against any equality groups? Yes No If you have answered yes to any of the above questions, please complete Section 2.6 of this document, otherwise, please proceed to Section 2.7. 2: Adverse impact is where the affect or impact of the policy, service, project or function results in less favourable treatment, discrimination or disadvantage which may be direct, indirect or not immediately obvious and is not capable of being justified. 3: Equality groups are people of a different Race, Gender, Religion/Belief, Sexual Orientation, Age Disabled people and people drawn from different Socio and Economic groupings. Note that at the time of writing, the assessment of Socio and Economic Groupings should be performed at a 1 strategic level only. 1 Draft Government Guidelines on Interpreting The Equality Bill 2010 Page 14 of 27
Section Two: Screening Impact (continued) : 2.6 How does the policy impact adversely on the following groups? Group: Evidence: Race: The policy does not appear to take into account circumstances where the quality of information provided by registrants about their CPD may be adversely affected because English is not their first language and who may take longer to understand the CPD framework requirements and to undertake and record their CPD. However, to achieve the education standards for initial registration as a pharmacist or pharmacy technician, with the exception of those qualified within the EEA but outside the UK, individuals must have been able to demonstrate a minimum level of written and spoken English prior to registration. Page 15 of 27
2.6 How does the policy impact adversely on the following groups? (continued) Group: Evidence: Gender The Council has a duty to protect the public and the Council s framework for CPD applies equally to all registrants, regardless of their working arrangements such as number of hours worked. It may therefore be perceived that this policy adversely impacts on women, given that women are more likely than men to take career breaks, periods of maternity leave and to work part time, particularly during the school years of their children. Disability This policy may impact adversely on those with visual disabilities and those with learning and writing disabilities such as dyslexia who may require additional time to undertake and record their CPD. Page 16 of 27
2.6 How does the policy impact adversely on the following groups? (continued) Group: Evidence: Sexual Orientation No direct impacts identified. However there may be a need to evaluate whether and how the disclosure of any information about a registrant s sexual orientation within a CPD record impacts on the evaluation of that record by a CPD reviewer. Religion / Belief No direct impacts identified. However, there may be a need to evaluate whether and how the expression of any religious or other beliefs within CPD entries impacts on the evaluation of a CPD record by a CPD reviewer. Age This policy may be perceived to impact adversely on older registrants whom, for most of their careers, have not been obliged to keep a record of their CPD and to submit it to the regulator on request. Although both electronic and paper recording options are available, older registrants may be less confident in recording their CPD electronically and therefore the options for CPD recording may be more limited. Page 17 of 27
Different Socio and Economic Groups No direct impacts identified. However it is recommended that the Council monitors whether there are differences in compliance rates between batches of registrants called for review with registered addresses in different geographical locations and that the results are compared with national socio and economic profiling data to establish if any particular socio/economic regions or areas within Great Britain are disadvantaged by the policy. Please now proceed to Section 3.0 Page 18 of 27
Section Two: Screening Impact (continued) : 2.7 Please state why, in your assessment, you consider that the policy is likely to have no Adverse Impact on Equality Groups. Please attach evidence to support your assessment. Not applicable. Page 19 of 27
Section Three: Promoting Inclusivity 3.1 How does this policy contribute towards the provision of fair and equal treatment to all people who have contact or dealings with the GPhC as detailed within the GPhC Equality and Diversity Scheme? With the exception of the potential risks of inequality identified as part of this Equality Impact Assessment the processes proposed within the CPD rules will allow all registrants to make representations to the Registrar, and to request a hearing, if they disagree with a determination that they have failed to comply with the requirements and conditions of the CPD framework. The results of both the consultation exercise and the implementation of the action points raised as part of this assessment will ensure that this policy gives due consideration as to how equality and diversity will be incorporated into processes for the call and review of registrants CPD records. Page 20 of 27
Section Three: Promoting Inclusivity (continued) : 3.2 How will you ensure that this policy is continuously communicated and available to all equality groups? The policy will be made available in a variety of formats. There will be ongoing dialogue with a range of stakeholders that have a role in supporting registrants with their CPD. 3.3 Is there an opportunity to promote equality and diversity in developing this policy? Please explain. The policy has been developed to outline the circumstances in which registrants will be considered to have failed to comply with the requirements and conditions of the CPD framework and the steps that the Registrar can take on being satisfied that a registrant has failed to comply, or has made a false declaration about their CPD. While the policy itself does not necessarily promote equality, the action points identified as part of this equality impact assessment will enable the Council to identify and address the equality issues that currently exist within the scope of this policy. Page 21 of 27
Section Four: Further Actions: 4.1 What are your specific actions/recommendations in relation to this policy? (based on your responses to Sections 2 & 3). Proposed Action Timescale Responsible Lead Measure/Outcomes 1: 2: 3: Capture and analyse the profile (by equality groups) of all registrants who fail to comply with the requirements and conditions of the CPD framework. Where trends are identified, consider what actions may need to take place to positively promote equality and to remove or alleviate any adverse impacts. Evaluate if and how this policy adversely impacts on women, given that women are more likely than men to take career breaks, periods of maternity leave and to work part time, particularly during school years of their children. Page 22 of 27
Section Four: Further Actions: Proposed Action Timescale Responsible Lead Measure/Outcomes 4: 5: 6: 7: Evaluate if and how the policy impacts adversely on those with visual disabilities and those with learning and writing disabilities such as dyslexia who may require additional time to undertake and record their CPD. Evaluate whether and how the disclosure of any information about a registrant s sexual orientation within a CPD record impacts on the evaluation of that record by a CPD reviewer. Evaluate whether and how the expression of any religious or other beliefs within CPD entries impacts on the evaluation of a CPD record by a CPD reviewer. Evaluate whether and how the policy impacts adversely on those whose first language is not English. Page 23 of 27
Section Four: Further Actions: Proposed Action Timescale Responsible Lead Measure/Outcomes 8: Evaluate whether and how the policy impacts adversely on older registrants. 9: Monitor whether there are differences in compliance rate within different geographical batches of registrants called for review to evaluate whether any particular socio/economic regions of areas within Great Britain are disadvantaged by the policy. 10: Monitor, record and review the characteristics of the CPD reviewers particularly in terms of age, race and gender with a view to evaluating whether the diversity of the group reflects the diversity of registrants. 11: Provide Diversity and Equality training to all CPD reviewers and all GPhC employees involved in the CPD review process. Page 24 of 27
Proposed Action Timescale Responsible Lead Measure/Outcomes 12: 13: Benchmark this policy with the equivalent policies of similar professional regulatory bodies to gain an insight into how equality and diversity is promoted as part of the CPD review process within similar organisations. Publish a statement about the adjustments that the Council is prepared to consider if the registrant has difficulty in complying with the requirements and conditions of the framework because of a disability. Page 25 of 27
Section Four: Further Actions: (continued): 4.2 How do you intend to monitor and report on the impact of the policy and the associated recommendations and actions? The impact will be monitored through the consultation process and as a result of the implementation of the action points outlined in this Equality Impact Assessment. Page 26 of 27
Section Five: Assessment Approval: 5.1 This Equality Impact Assessment has been completed by: Name:. Date This Equality Impact Assessment has been examined and is approved/signed off on behalf of the GPhC: Name:. Date Notes: Completed assessments must be sent to: Page 27 of 27