Healthcare Law Digest - Issue 2

After a post-Christmas break, Healthcare Law Digest is back! This month's roundup covers key developments in healthcare regulation and fitness-to-practise law, including the High Court’s decision in PSA v GPhC & R2, the GMC’s controversial new role regulating Physician Associates and Anaesthesia Associates, and recent rulings on fitness-to-practise decisions and best-interest determinations in the Court of Protection.

Read on for analysis of this month’s most significant cases and regulatory updates.

Case Comment: Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v (1) General Pharmaceutical Council (2) R2 [2024] EWHC 3005 (Admin)

In PSA v GPhC & R2 [2024], the High Court overturned a stay on proceedings against a pharmacist accused of involvement in fraudulent activities. The case explores two critical regulatory issues: when decisions can be reopened due to fundamental mistakes of fact and the high threshold required to justify a stay of proceedings. Balancing procedural fairness with public confidence, the Court allowed the appeal, remitting the case for fresh consideration. This decision reaffirms the principle that reopening cases requires genuine errors, not mere differences in judgment, and highlights the exceptional nature of stays in regulatory contexts.

Read the full post here: https://eloiselesanto.com/case-comment-professional-standards-authority-for-health-and-social-care-v-1-general-pharmaceutical-council-2-r2-2024-ewhc-3005-admin/

GMC Regulation of PAs and AAs: A Step Forward or a Step Too Far?

The General Medical Council (GMC) has officially taken over as the regulator for Anaesthesia Associates (AAs) and Physician Associates (PAs), marking a significant shift in the NHS workforce. While this move is part of the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan, it comes amid heated debates about patient safety, role clarity, and the GMC’s regulatory approach. Legal challenges from the British Medical Association and Anaesthetists United highlight concerns over fitness-to-practise pressures, supervision protocols, and the blurring of professional distinctions.

Read the full blog post to explore what this means for the future of healthcare regulation: https://eloiselesanto.com/gmc-regulation-of-pas-and-aas-a-step-forward-or-a-step-too-far/

Case Comment: Ibrahim, R (On the Application Of) v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2024] EWHC 2991 (Admin)

The recent High Court case, Ibrahim v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2024] EWHC 2991 (Admin), offers valuable insights into the importance of clear reasoning in fitness to practise tribunal decisions. The case involved an RMN appealing a conditions of practice order, challenging the panel’s handling of his defense and their assessment of his insight.

The court allowed the appeal, quashing the findings of misconduct and impairment. It emphasized that panels must engage fully with a registrant’s defense, especially when systemic challenges or workplace conditions play a role in their actions. In this case, the appellant argued his actions were justified by the difficult circumstances he faced, including understaffing and the absence of a care plan. The panel failed to adequately address these points, undermining the fairness of its decision.

To explore the full case analysis and its implications for fitness to practise law, check out the blog post here: https://eloiselesanto.com/case-comment-ibrahim-r-on-the-application-of-v-nursing-and-midwifery-council-2024-ewhc-2991-admin/

Case Comment: XR v NHS North Central London ICB and Others?[2024] EWCOP 66 (T3)

In a recent Court of Protection case, Mrs Justice Theis ruled that continuing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) was not in the best interests of XR, a patient in a vegetative state. This judgment underscores ongoing systemic delays in best-interest decision-making for patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC), despite clear legal and ethical frameworks.

The court acknowledged significant failures by care providers to act in a timely manner, leaving XR in limbo for years. While the judge called for structured and proactive processes to avoid such delays, she declined to issue broader judicial guidance, deferring to efforts by professional bodies to update existing guidelines. This refusal leaves some uncertainty for clinicians navigating similar complex and sensitive cases.

XR’s case is yet another urgent reminder of the need for vigilance and accountability in ensuring patients’ dignity and rights are respected.

To dive deeper into the case and explore its implications, read the full blog post on my website: https://eloiselesanto.com/case-comment-xr-v-nhs-north-central-london-icb-and-others/