The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 274 No 7345 p464
16 April 2005

Society summary

Code of Ethics amendment on co-operation with investigations and inquiries …

The Society’s codes of ethics are to be amended so that both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians will be required to co-operate fully with any investigation into their own or any other health professional’s fitness to practise. The requirement will appear in a new section A.4 inserted into Part 2 of the code (see Panel below).

The April Council meeting heard that there had been an increasing number of instances where pharmacists had failed or been extremely reluctant to co-operate with an investigation into another pharmacist’s or other health care professional’s fitness to practise. A specific requirement in the code would demonstrate the importance of assisting the Society’s inspectorate or any other inspecting body with accurate and honest information.

The Council was told that several other regulators had specific requirements in their code of conduct to co-operate with regulators’ fitness to practise machinery.

When the Council considered the proposed new wording, Gerald Alexander said that he was concerned about how the word “reluctance” would be interpreted. Even a brief hesitation before giving an answer could be interpreted as “reluctance”. Who would adjudicate? He would like greater clarity.

Linda Stone said that she understood Mr Alexander’s concerns, but whether reluctance was reasonable or not was a question of ethics, and ethics was always a question of judgement. It would be judged in the same way as any other alleged infringement of ethics is judged.

Patricia Hoare, chairman of the Law and Ethics Committee, said that guidance was to be issued to ensure that pharmacists and registered pharmacy technicians are aware that, if asked to co-operate with an investigation or inquiry, they are not precluded from first obtaining legal guidance or contacting their legal indemnity provider. The issue raised by Mr Alexander could be clarified in that guidance.

Douglas Simpson said that there had been concern within the Law and Ethics Committee about the possibility of pharmacists incriminating themselves before they had taken proper advice. He was pleased that there would be guidance. He hoped the guidance would also include something about pharmacists having their rights explained to them by the inspector or other investigator.

… and on voluntary undertakings to Statutory Committee

The Society’s Code of Ethics for pharmacists is to be amended to the effect that a breach of an undertaking given by a pharmacist to the Statutory Committee could be viewed as misconduct in its own right and could be subject to separate disciplinary proceedings. At the April Council meeting it was agreed that a new section to that effect, section A.4(b), should be inserted into the code (see Panel).

The new provision is designed to support the Statutory Committee in its dealings with health-related cases, where the committee has tended to adopt a “rehabilitative” approach. Rather than removing the pharmacist’s name from the register, the committee may adjourn the inquiry for a specified period subject to the pharmacist complying with certain voluntary undertakings. The case may be brought back before the committee at the conclusion of that period or earlier if it receives any adverse information about the pharmacist in the meantime.

The new provision is a temporary measure pending the introduction of new disciplinary procedures through pharmacy’s Section 60 Order under the Health Act 1999.