Home > PJ (current issue) > News / Daily News | Search

Return to PJ Online Home Page

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 271 No 7267 p357
20 September 2003

This article
Reprint
Photocopy


News summary

Related websites
CRHP: Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals (www.crhp.org.uk)
CRHP proposal (PDF 160K)
National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (more)


New regulatory council intends to watch disciplinary committees closely

Statutory Committee decisions could be changed by High Court judges

The Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals (CRHP) intends to watch closely over the shoulder of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Statutory Committee.

All Statutory Committee decisions not to strike off pharmacists who are found guilty of professional misconduct will be reviewed. The CRHP can appeal to the High Court against all such decisions. If the Court accepts the appeal it can quash the decision, impose another or send the case back to the committee with directions.

In 2001, the most recent year for which figures are readily available, the Statutory Committee found 31 pharmacists or companies guilty of professional misconduct, but decided either to reprimand them or take no action. It also decided to allow the restoration to the register of 10 pharmacists who had been struck off and directed that two individuals should be registered who had previously been subject to orders that they should not be registered without the committee’s permission. All such future decisions will be reviewed by the CRHP.

The CRHP proposes to require regulators to notify it of all disciplinary decisions involving professional misconduct so that it can decide whether the penalty imposed affords appropriate protection of the public. When professionals have not been struck off it will decide whether there might be a public protection issue related to the leniency shown. If so, the regulator concerned will be required to provide details of the case so that CRHP senior staff and council members can decide whether to appeal.

The new regulatory council will have to move quickly, because the law requires its appeals to be lodged no more than four weeks after the expiry of an aggrieved practitioner’s appeal period. Pharmacists who are ordered to be struck off have three months in which to appeal, but the CRHP has no interest in these cases. There is no appeal period where a lesser penalty is imposed, so the CRHP has only four weeks, or as it sees it 19 working days, in which to conduct a complete case review.

Offences that merit striking-off orders

The Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals says that it will consider failure to strike off professionals guilty of the following offences as indicative of undue leniency by regulatory authorities. The list is not exhaustive.

• Persistent or grave lapses in clinical standards
• Violence, whether in or outside the work context
• Inclusion on a statutory protection register
• Sexual assault, indecency or misconduct, whether in or outside the work context
• Other grave or persistent lapses of professional standards

The CRHP expects to review about 350 cases a year across the professions that it currently supervises. Circumstances that it believes indicate undue leniency if a practitioner is not struck off are in the Panel.

Jane Wesson, chairwoman of CRHP, said: “We must have a fair and careful process for deciding to refer any cases to court, so this consultation is very important. But it covers only a small part of what CRHP has been set up to do. Our main purpose is to promote the interests of patients and the wider public in the regulation of the health professions. We are here to stimulate good practice in regulation and to strengthen the trust placed in the professionals who care for patients.”

Ann Lewis, Secretary and Registrar of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said: “The CRHP has an important role to play in reassuring the public. The Society welcomes the opportunity to participate in this consultation. The Society is represented on the CRHP council, which has been meeting since April and making encouraging progress. The Society is committed to ensuring the highest level of probity and transparency in carrying out our duties as a regulator.”

Comments on the CRHP procedural proposal can be made to

CRHP Consultations
Kierran Cross
11 Strand, London WC2N 5HR

Tel 020 7389 8030
fax 020 7389 8040
e-mail crhpcons@doh.gsi.gov.uk

until 15 December.


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

Back to Top


Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs  Classifieds | Site Map | Contact us

©The Pharmaceutical Journal