Society consults on disciplinary reform and competence-based practising rights

Comments on the proposals are sought by March 28 and should be addressed to the Secretary to the

Health Act Working Party
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
1 Lambeth High Street
London SE1 7JN
Fax 020 7582 4279
e-mail mmcconochie@rpsgb.org.uk

www.rpsgb.org.uk/pdfs/hawp.pdf

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has begun consulting its membership on a major reform of the profession's disciplinary machinery and the introduction of a requirement on pharmacists to undertake appropriate continuing professional development if they wish to retain the right to practise. A detailed consultation paper is being distributed to members with this issue of The Journal.

The aim of the Society’s proposals — drawn up by the Council’s Health Act Working Party — is to meet the Government’s requirements for health self-regulatory bodies, as set out in the National Health Service national plan. The Government wants such bodies to be generally smaller but with greater patient and public representation, so that their procedures are faster, more transparent and more clearly accountable.

The proposals are intended to reflect the Government’s requirements for regulation of the health care professions, as already made clear in its proposals for a new Nursing and Midwifery Council and a Health Professions Council. One requirement of those proposals is a professional majority of no more than one on councils or their committees. The Society is not seeking greater lay representation on its own Council but proposes that relevant Council functions should be delegated to committees that do have substantial lay membership.

Commenting on the proposals, Mr Bill Darling, who chairs the Health Act Working Party, said that the profession now had a great opportunity to set in place structures to ensure that all practising pharmacists could demonstrate that they had up-to-date, relevant skills, and that poor performance or misconduct could be promptly and effectively addressed. The Society had a strong reputation for dealing with those few members of the profession who behaved badly, through the work of its inspectors and the Statutory Committee. But until now it had not been able to persuade governments of the need for reform of the relevant law and procedures. It now had a tremendous opportunity to get proper powers to ensure the quality of the practising profession.

Mr Darling added: "I believe that the introduction of increased lay involvement in our processes will be of great benefit. The non-pharmacist members of the Council, appointed by the Privy Council, offer very valuable contributions to our decision-making processes, and we will be able to use the skills of additional lay members on the committees to help us to ensure that we meet public expectations of pharmacy in the future."

Disciplinary procedures

Setting out a skeleton format for the proposed new disciplinary procedures, the document says that the principal proposal is the delegation of the Council's regulatory power in relation to discipline to an Investigating Committee (replacing the Council's Infringements Committee) and a Disciplinary Committee (replacing the Statutory Committee). On each committee, pharmacists would be in a majority of one. Lay members would be appointed after public advertisement and in consultation with the Privy Council. There would be no common membership between the committees.

Investigating Committee The role of the Investigating Committee would be to investigate allegations and, if appropriate, to refer them for a Disciplinary Committee hearing. The Investigating Committee would comprise eight pharmacists, reflecting different fields of practice, and seven lay members.

The Professional Standards Directorate would advise the committee of all complaints. If necessary, an emergency committee meeting would consider "fast-tracking" a case. The committee would decide whether a case should proceed to a full Disciplinary Committee hearing. If not, it would be able to issue a written warning or advice to the person who was the subject of the allegation.

Disciplinary Committee The Disciplinary Committee would hear all complaints referred to it by the Investigating Committee. For each case, a committee of three pharmacists and two lay people would be appointed, with a legally qualified chairman. Committee members would be selected by an Appointments Committee from a panel appointed by the Council. The selection would take into account the field of practice and the home country of the pharmacist appearing before the committee.

Following preliminary consideration of the evidence, the Disciplinary Committee would be able to make an interim suspension order or a conditional registration order if deemed necessary to protect the public from risk. It would be able to make the following directions in relation to a case:

• no further action
• a caution
• conditional registration
• suspension
• striking-off
• referral to a health committee
• restriction of right to act as a superintendent pharmacist of a limited company
• disqualification from running a retail pharmacy business
• financial penalties
• removal of premises from the Register
• in exceptional circumstances, the award of costs

There would be procedures for the review of directions and for appeals to the High Court (or the Court of Session in Scotland).

Competence-based practising rights

The document says that the Government clearly wants future continued registration for health professions to depend on participation in continuing professional development. It is proposed that pharmacists should have to undertake CPD as a condition for the periodic renewal of practising rights or for readmission to practice after a period of absence. The document says that the Society’s education division is exploring the development of its CPD pilot scheme into a practical CPD facilitation programme for all practising pharmacists. Pharmacists would be required to submit CPD documentation to the Society every two to three years.

A Competence Audit Committee would set the framework for, determine the details of and monitor the operation of the CPD requirements. The committee would comprise eight pharmacists, from different fields of practice, and seven lay members.

Back to Top