The Pharmaceutical
Journal Vol 267 No 7163 p293-296
1 September 2001
|
|
The Pharmaceutical
Journal Vol 267 No 7163 p293-296 |
|
Statutory fees |
Indemnity insurance (2 letters)An umbrella full of holesFrom Mrs A. Morant, MRPharmS Representation for real? Further to the letter from Ian Simpson, professional secretary of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists (PJ, 11 August, p192), I feel that there is need for clarification as to who is a National Health Service employee and what is NHS work. A pharmacist working on the staff of a hospital, and being paid by that organisation, is surely an employee; but is that the situation for one working there as a locum — either self-employed or employed by an agency? Similarly, what is the situation of one working in a group practice where the GPs (and/or the practice itself) are subcontractors rather than a direct part of the NHS? A similar case surely exists in community pharmacy where the pharmacy has an NHS contract and is not a direct part of the NHS. Would the legal advice and representation benefits of guild membership extend to all these situations? A great many owners of community pharmacies are members of the National Pharmaceutical Association and have the NPA’s insurance cover. However, does that cover always embrace an employee? I think not. After all, there must be many situations where there would be a conflict of interest and the NPA would represent the actual member and distance itself from the employee. The Harrow and Hillingdon Branch of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society regularly publishes a locum list and advises prospective locums that, in view of the potential for conflict of interest, they should have their own professional indemnity insurance. Would membership of the GHP satisfy this requirement for all those working in, but not necessarily employed by, the health service? If not, it can be compared to carrying an umbrella which, when you go to use it, is full of holes. Annette Morant |
|
IAN SIMPSON (professional secretary, Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists) replies: NHS indemnity covers all staff working for NHS trusts and authorities, whether as employees or locums. It does not cover GPs or community pharmacists or their staff. However, an NHS employee seconded to work in a GP practice as part of his or her NHS job, would be covered. Membership of the guild is open only to pharmacists working for a health service body, another public service (eg, the prison service and the armed forces), or a private hospital. Community pharmacists and their staff or locums are not eligible for membership. However, employees and locums in community pharmacy are eligible for membership of our parent body MSF, but would still need separate professional indemnity insurance because they are not covered by NHS indemnity. |
|
Fragile and unsatisfactory adviceFrom Mr M. Koziol, MRPharmS It is a source of constant surprise to me that the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists continues to offer advice on professional indemnity insurance which is extremely fragile and therefore unsatisfactory. The position of the guild as stated by Ian Simpson (PJ, 11 August, p192) suggests that if the hospital pharmacist employees are members of the NHS Clinical Negligence Scheme then they do not need to take out their own professional indemnity insurance since they can rely on the NHS. This advice totally misses the point of having one’s own independent protection. Although the NHS Clinical Negligence Scheme will look after the patient in the event that something goes wrong (and therefore complies with the requirements of the Code of Ethics), it is not designed to look after the interests of individual pharmacists. The fact that employee pharmacists could, under these arrangements, be reliant upon their employer (the NHS) for protection in the event that something goes badly wrong could be completely disastrous for the employee involved. Imagine the evidence conflict that occurs when an employee, in his or her defence, believes that blame for an incident actually rests with the NHS and not with them. In this situation, can the employee truly rely on protection funded by the employer, or is it just possible that fudge is followed by delay and finally a compromise which does not clear the individual pharmacist’s name and reputation? I have seen numerous cases where pharmacists’ interests have come second place to those of their employers, where the employer funds the so-called protection and in some cases these have been potentially liberty threatening situations. It would appear also that the legal advice and representation provided by the MSF union as described by Mr Simpson is limited. There are a large number of situations that occur in real life, and some are quite routine, where a much more comprehensive range of protection is required. I believe though that I am not alone in my thinking since more than 50 per cent of all hospital pharmacists have already chosen to carry their own independent professional indemnity and legal defence costs insurance, and that proportion continues to rise. Mark Koziol |
|
|
IAN SIMPSON (professional secretary, Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists) replies: Mr Koziol misses the point that independent protection
for individual employees is exactly what guild membership provides. If
a pharmacist is unfortunate to be involved in an incident which leads
to the death of a patient, he or she may be subject to any or all of the
following: The main principle of the NHS Clinical Negligence Scheme is that NHS bodies are legally liable for the negligent acts and omissions of their employees. The booklet accompanying the NHS circular on the subject also states that this means that NHS bodies should accept financial liability where negligent harm has occurred, and should not seek to recover their costs from the health professional concerned or from any indemnities they may have. Thus, the NHS employer will accept financial responsibility in a suit for damages. It may also provide legal representation for the employee at a coroner’s inquest. It will not provide support to the employee in any of the other scenarios listed above. However, the guild, through its parent body MSF, does provide individual advice and legal representation for its members in all six scenarios, including a suit for damages. This can hardly be described as a limited service. |
|
|
Previous Topic (Preregistration) |
Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs Classifieds | Site
Map | Contact us
©The Pharmaceutical Journal