Disciplinary procedures and competence to practise

For some years, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has been trying to update the profession's somewhat rigid disciplinary procedures. Progress has been frustratingly slow, not least because the Society's reputation as the most effective regulator among the health professions has hardly helped to instil a sense of urgency into the legislators.

But now the Society has before it the chance of rapid progress. The main catalyst for this sudden opportunity has been the climate of concern about the medical profession and the effectiveness of regulation within health care professions. Recent evidence of inadequate control within health care professions has led the Government to recognise that disciplinary structures are in need of reform if there is to be effective regulation in all health professions and consistency between them.

The Government has itself produced proposals for new legislation for nurses and midwives and for professions supplementary to medicine. Using these as guidance, the Society, through the Council's Health Act Working Party, has updated its own ideas. It has not been easy, because of the Society's unique position as both a professional and a regulatory body. But the working party has met the challenge with a proposal that separates the two roles by allowing the Council to delegate some of its regulatory functions to a new committee structure that meets the Government agenda. Accompanying this issue of The Journal is a consultation document explaining how this would be achieved. The document is summarised here.

Hand in hand with the proposal for reform of the profession’s disciplinary machinery is a proposal for a requirement that pharmacists should undertake an approved programme of continuing professional development if they wish to retain the right to practise. This move will be welcomed by pharmacists who recognise that future professional growth will depend on the demonstration of competence. It would put pharmacists on a par with other health professions, allowing them to offer the quality assurance that the public and the Government clearly expect. Without such quality assurance there may be no future for community pharmacy, especially in the light of the Government’s intention — as stated in the NHS pharmacy plan — to reward those who provide professional services at the expense of those who do the bare minimum. The growth of CPD and new opportunities for specialisation will add to the challenges and opportunities for pharmacists.

It should be noted that the reform of the profession's disciplinary machinery and the introduction of competence-based practising rights have both been the subject of previous consultations, most recently in April last year (PJ, April 22, 2000, p616). Both concepts have already been welcomed by the membership. We hope that all pharmacists now find time to study this latest consultation document and send a message of support to the Health Act Working Party while the window of opportunity remains open.

Back to Top