The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7318 p418
25 September 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 80K, Acrobat Reader

· Patients' own drugs
· APPS
· CHRE
· Homoeopathy
· Retention fee
· The register
· The Society
· The Journal

Letters to the Editor

CHRE

Notifications from various bodies make interesting reading

From Professor H. McNulty, FRPharmS

The annual report of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence for 2003 (PDF 1MB) provides data that allow crude comparison of rates of notification by each of the nine regulatory bodies. The numbers of notifications made are given (p38) along with total memberships shown for each body (p13). The results show a rather staggering 50-fold difference between highest and lowest referral figures.

It is interesting to note that the bodies shown (in italic) that also have some professional leadership responsibilities have even higher notification rates than we do while those with purely regulatory roles are mostly lower. They may be influenced by the fact that this is the first year of operation and not all bodies may be operating to the same timelines or values yet.

For true comparisons it would be necessary to see figures over several years of numbers considered by each body, along with the number struck off, as I believe notifications only relate to cases where striking off was not undertaken.

It is too early to judge what these figures mean: are bodies with professional roles harder on their members; are they more likely to have cases or complaints referred to the right place; or are they more likely to have more members who are unprofessional or more likely to commit certain offences? No doubt over time more equitable approaches will develop and some answers to these questions should emerge.

It would help to develop answers (and for teaching purposes) if the CHRE could adopt a standard classification system for cases, such as those convicted of specified criminal offences, including those, which it has judged are striking off offences (PJ, 20 September 2003, p357), namely:

· Persistent or grave lapses in clinical standards
· Violence within or outside the workplace
· Inclusion on a statutory protection register
· Sexual assault, indecency or misconduct in or outside the work content
· Other grave or persistent lapses of professional standards

Fraud and drug offences feature quite frequently in your columns and there could be other categories of interest post-Shipman. Similar data for the outcome of application for restoration would also be helpful.

Howard McNulty
Visiting Professor
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (APPS)
Next Topic (Homoeopathy)