The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7235 p205
8 February 2003

Society summary

CPD consultation document proposes "active" and "inactive" classes on register

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is seeking views on whether the introduction of mandatory continuing professional development should be accommodated by splitting the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists into "active" and "inactive" classes.

A consultation document issued by the Society's CPD implementation committee proposes that those engaged in activities normally seen as a pharmacists' activities would have to join the active register and meet CPD requirements. Others would be able to stay on the register as inactive members provided they made a declaration that they did not "purport to be or to practise as a pharmacist". They would not face any CPD requirements but would still be subject to the Code of Ethics. Those unable to accept either option would have to leave the Society.

The document appears as a centre pull-out (PDF 165K) in this issue of The Journal. Readers will be able to respond by completing a survey form distributed with next week's issue. The form will also be available to download from the Society's website.

The consultation document begins with a background section explaining that the Government wants all health professions to introduce mandatory CPD in the public interest. The Society has already piloted a comprehensive CPD system that is now being rolled out on a voluntary basis. It is likely to have been launched to all pharmacists before CPD becomes mandatory.

The document goes on to say that the split register proposal acknowledges that pharmacists work in many different settings and that some choose to remain on the register even though they do not work as pharmacists at all. A key consideration has been how to apply CPD requirements to pharmacists working in different sectors and occupations.

The committee says that the register could be restructured by dividing it into two parts, by annotating the type of membership in one main list, or by having separate registers. There would be a means for pharmacists to move between the two classes, and for the public to be able to differentiate between the two classes. Pharmacists who chose the inactive class would have to make a declaration to the Society that they are not active in pharmacy. Anyone making an inaccurate statement would be open to disciplinary action.

The committee's understanding is that the Government wants mandatory CPD for anyone "holding themselves out to be a pharmacist". The active category would therefore extend to anyone whose work involved the broad science and practice of pharmacy.

The document says that the committee and the Council have categorised pharmacists into three main groups (see Panel). The document suggests that both Group 1 and Group 2 should be subject to mandatory CPD. Although their employment may not require those in Group 2 to be pharmacists, most would be seen as pharmacists because their jobs overlap with the science and practice of pharmacy. Public interest would require them to be in the active class.

To remain in the active class pharmacists would have to submit CPD records on a regular basis. Those who failed to do so would be removed from the active register. Those whose CPD returns were unsatisfactory would be offered help to put things right.

An "active" pharmacist in Group 2 would still be able to do locum work or move into mainstream pharmacy practice. This would not be a problem, the committee believes, because taking such a step without being properly prepared would contravene the Code of Ethics.

For Group 3, the committee suggests that those who want the option of practising as a pharmacist (eg, for occasional locum work) would have to carry out CPD and be in the active class. For others, the inactive class would allow them to retain membership without having to undertake CPD. Arrangements would be in place to allow them to move to the active class, perhaps after further training. Those in the inactive class would still be members of the Society. As well as being subject to the Code of Ethics procedures, they could still receive The Journal, vote in Council elections, be involved as branch members, etc.

The committee goes on to ask whether it is in the public interest for those in the inactive class to call themselves pharmacists. It seeks views on whether there is a more appropriate term.

The consultation document makes it clear that the proposal does not go as far as revalidation, even though some other health care professions are developing revalidation systems that include practice requirements, performance appraisal and/or practice audit. But revalidation in the future is not ruled out.

The document also seeks views on the type of CPD that should be required. It says that CPD could be related to pharmacy in general, to the pharmacist's specific sector of practice or to the pharmacist's job. It asks for views on which category or categories should be required as a minimum.

The document adds that prescribing pharmacists might be required to show evidence of role-specific CPD relating to prescribing in generic terms and to the therapeutic area or areas in which they exercise their prescribing rights. Views are also to sought on this suggestion.

Next week's survey form will ask for responses by 17 March. The Council will consider the responses before drawing up its final proposals for the Department of Health, to take them into account in drafting legislation. The legislation is not expected to come into being before late 2004.

  * PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.