The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7199 p739-746
25 May 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

161st Annual General Meeting summary

Council opts for a dual-role Society

The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has decided that the Society should retain both its regulatory and professional roles within a reformed structure, firmly based on the public interest.

The decision was announced on 15 May at the Society's annual general meeting. At a meeting earlier that day the Council had decided that, by retaining these roles, the Society would have a head start towards becoming a world-class regulator and professional body in the modern sense. This, the Council believes, will produce the best outcome for both the public and the profession.

The decision forms part of the modernisation programme initiated by the Council in October 2001 with the aim of making the Society fit for the future.

The Society says that, in making its decision, the Council recognised that, if the Society were to relinquish its regulatory role, pharmacy would still need to be regulated. But it was unlikely that the Government would be willing to devote legislative time to setting up a new regulatory body for pharmacy. The more likely outcome would be that pharmacy would be added to the remit of the Health Professions Council and would lose its independent self-regulation and perhaps much of its professional identity. In addition, the expanded scope of modern regulation would mean that the Society would lose much of what might now be considered "professional functions" to the new regulator.

The Council discussed how the Society's remit was broader than that of any other health professional regulator. The Society's professional development role includes such activities as the Society's local network, aspects of research, support for clinical governance and guidance on good clinical practice, public health and developing the profession's role for the future.

The Council also recognised the importance of the Society's representative role, promoting the profession's contribution to health care to the public, to government and to other health professions. A modern regulator needs to be in a position to make representations whenever policy or other factors threaten the profession's ability to deliver a safe and effective quality service.

The Council made its decision after considering the outcome of its consultation earlier in the year, when the modernisation steering group published a discussion paper setting out in broad outline the current remit and functions of the Society, the constraints on future options posed by legislation, the Charter and government policy, and potential future options and their pros and cons. Comments were invited from pharmacists and all those with an interest in the future remit and functions of the Society.

The responses showed a clear preference among pharmacists for retaining both regulatory and professional functions within a reformed Society, with 70 per cent supporting this option. Responses from groups within the Society were unanimous in also supporting this option. Responses from other pharmacy bodies showed a majority in favour of retaining both regulatory and professional functions, with the next most popular option being for the Society to retain only the functions of a modern regulator.

Responses from bodies outside pharmacy were more varied, with most of those who expressed a preference calling for a separation of the Society's regulatory and professional functions to make the public interest focus more explicit. Some others believed that the needs of patients and the public would be best served by the Society retaining both regulatory and professional functions.

Where responses expressed dissatisfaction with the Society's remit and functions, the most frequent call was for a trade union-type body for all pharmacists, to negotiate on staffing, workload and pay levels, to provide legal representation in disputes and to lobby for pharmacists' interests. The Society says that it would be impossible for it as a regulatory body to undertake these functions. But others may want to explore the possibilities.

Commenting on the consultation, the President, Marshall Davis, said that in reaching its decision, the Council was mindful that the responses had shown a clear preference among pharmacists for retaining both regulatory and professional roles within the Society. A number of respondents had seen the Society's obligation to serve the public interest and the need for greater lay involvement as positive strengths that would help safeguard and maintain public confidence in pharmacy and ensure the profession's long-term future.

In a press release about the Council's decision, the Society points out that the scope of professional regulation is changing enormously. The Kennedy report on children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary and the Government's response, "Learning from Bristol", have put in place a broader, more integrated framework that goes far beyond disciplinary processes. This modern definition of professional regulation includes all the processes that combine to assure competence and fitness to practise. This includes functions such as those set out in the Panel.

It is evident, says the Society, that this reinterpretation of regulation encompasses much of what might previously have been considered the Society's "professional" functions. The vision of professional health regulation set out in the Kennedy report echoes the way that the Society has evolved, combining the promotion of high quality practice with dealing with the few who fail to meet acceptable standards. The main thrust of regulation is moving towards helping good pharmacists to remain good — and indeed to become better — while still managing problem pharmacists.