Latest Shipman report may affect Society’s roles
Criticisms of the General Medical Council made in the latest Shipman Inquiry report could have implications for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
The inquiry’s fifth report, which was published last week, examines
the monitoring and disciplinary systems for doctors. The GMC, doctors’ regulatory
body, is criticised for acting in the interests of registrants rather
than putting patient protection first.
According to the report, one of the GMC’s fundamental problems
is a conflict between representative and regulatory roles. The report
notes that a perception of a representative role has arisen despite the
fact that the GMC is solely a regulatory body. It suggests that the GMC
cannot rid itself of this perception because of its constitution, which
means that it is effectively controlled by elected members.
“It is not appropriate that the GMC should be dominated by elected
members. It should certainly be dominated by medical members; I am not
suggesting
that there should be any increase in the proportion of lay members. But
I do suggest that there should be more appointed medical members, people
who are not beholden to an electorate and who do not see themselves in
the position of representatives of the profession,” Dame Janet
Smith, chairman of the inquiry, recommends.
“To do their work properly as members of a regulatory body, they
have to put the public interest first,” she added.
The report also highlights another structural issue for the GMC. It states
that it is inappropriate for the GMC to carry out both the investigation
of a case and then the adjudication on it. In other words, the GMC cannot
be both the prosecutor and the judge. The GMC had taken steps to separate
these functions, but these do not go far enough for the Shipman Inquiry. “I
have recommended that responsibility for the adjudication stage should
be transferred to an independent organisation,” says Dame Janet.
Mandie Lavin: dual role under scrutiny |
Commenting
on the report, Mandie Lavin, the Society’s director
of fitness to practise and legal affairs, said: “It is useful to
have such a complete examination of the fitness to practise process.”
The Society recognises that some of the report’s recommendations
could have implications for its functions. “It is conceivable that
the dual role of the Society as a regulator and as a representative body
for registrants will be subject to increased scrutiny in the future,” said
Ms Lavin. “There are strengths in the combined function but the
Society will need to put in additional safeguards to provide both the
membership and the public with an assurance that the regulatory and representative
functions are separate.” Ms Lavin also pointed out that the Society
will need to consider its position on the issue of whether a separate
adjudicating body to hear cases from all regulators should be set up.
Other recommendations made by the inquiry are that all health care professionals
should have a duty to view the actions of fellow professionals with independence
and objectivity, and that doctors’ disciplinary records should
be made publicly available on the GMC website. These are issues that
Ms Lavin said that the Society would consider for pharmacists. The report
also highlights the introduction of revalidation for doctors planned
for 2005. It says that revalidation could make a major contribution to
identifying incompetent doctors and improving patient safety but that
the present proposals are unsatisfactory.
The report highlights the work of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory
Excellence and states that a future review of its powers should be undertaken
to see if they should be extended. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader