News summary Pharmacists who are struck from the Register may find
that they are virtually unable ever to practise again even after the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society's Statutory Committee decides that it safe to restore
them to the register...[more] |
|
Professionally fit pharmacists could be effectively barred from practice for lifePharmacists who are struck from the Register may find that they are virtually unable ever to practise again even after the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Statutory Committee decides that it safe to restore them to the register. Powers to be given to health authorities under the Health and Social Care Bill to maintain registers of health professionals permitted to work for the National Health Service could be used to ensure that someone convicted of defrauding the NHS never works again for the NHS or anyone who provides NHS services. This has been brought to light by Don Alderton, a pharmacist from Chester, who is concerned that the provision means that pharmacists and other health professionals might never be able to expunge their guilt. Mr Alderton recently wrote about the matter to his local member of parliament, Christine Russell, who then took it up with Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt. Lord Hunt's reply to Ms Russell made it clear that Mr Alderton's concern that pharmacists faced triple-jeopardy should they offend in any way was not only justified, but that this was the intention. Lord Hunt said that the intention was to give health authorities greater control over who provides NHS community pharmacy services because they currently had little control over individuals who actually provide services, especially where they are employed by pharmacy owners. We think this puts health authorities in an unsatisfactory position, he said. Specifically, Lord Hunt said that there was nothing health authorities could do to prevent pharmacists who had been convicted of fraud from continuing to work pending a Statutory Committee hearing or after restoration to the pharmaceutical register. The new provision would mean that health authorities could suspend or exclude fraudulent pharmacists or those who were dangerous to patients or whose criminal or professional record meant that they were not suitable to provide NHS services. Excluded pharmacists would have a right of appeal to the Family Health Services Appeal Authority. Referring to how the lists would work, the minister explained that health authorities would hold separate lists, but that inclusion on one English authority list would allow work in any other health authority in England. Welsh arrangements would be separate. Mr Alderton told The Journal: I think that the minister's reply raises more questions than it answers, because it would appear that the Society's authority over professional matters is in danger of being sidelined throughout the whole of the disciplinary process. Sue Sharpe, director of professional standards at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society commented: We will be very interested to see whether the sanctions available reflect those given to our new disciplinary body under our revised proposals (PJ, April 14, p502) and whether there will be scope for anomalies, such as example when a person may be considered professionally fit for practice, but still not be eligible for readmission to an NHS practising list. Mrs Sharpe added that there were a number of questions about how the proposals would impact the Society's regulatory functions and the pharmacy manpower market. |
|
CSM to advise on medicines labellingThe pharmaceutical industry is to be given advice on packaging and labelling in an attempt to reduce medical accidents where confusing labelling is a contributory factor. A Committee on Safety of Medicines expert group, to be chaired by Dr Rob Calvert (consultant in prescribing and pharmacy practice, East Riding and Hull Health Authority) is to draw up the advice with a remit to report to Ministers by July. Andrea Patel, a hospital pharmacist who won the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists' Pharmacia & Upjohn Award for 1999, identified similarities in packaging and similar sounding names for medicines as a source of mistakes (PJ, November 18, 2000, p744). She says that dispensing errors caused by ambiguities in packaging are commonplace but are accepted as something pharmacists have to live with. After surveying 33 hospitals, the most frequent sources of error she found were different strengths of the same medicine being in indistinguishable boxes and different medicines with similar names made by the same manufacturer. In the past, both the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the MCA have opposed devices to reduce confusion, such as colour-coding, arguing that they would make people liable to rely on the coding, rather than read labels carefully. |