Regulatory review should consider fitness for purpose
Andrew Foster has been told that too rigid regulation may hinder
patient care |
Consideration should be given to the overall fitness for purpose of the current regulatory framework for the non-medical health professions, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has said.
Responding to a call for ideas from the Department of Health director
of workforce, Andrew Foster, the Society says that regulation of the
professions should not be considered in isolation, but in the context
of health care regulation as a whole and what that is intended to achieve.
Mr Foster is conducting a review
of non-medical health regulation that
parallels the chief medical officer’s review of the General Medical
Council (PJ, 19 March, p323).
The Society’s response argues that the best system of regulation
comprises a group of specialist regulators acting under the overall supervision
of an oversight regulator. It suggests that the pharmacy profession would
be particularly badly affected if the Society’s current regulatory
roles were to be moved elsewhere because there would be no secure source
of funding for the Society’s remaining professional roles, such
as overseeing education and professional standards.
It suggests that the review should consider whether the focus of regulation
should be on individual practitioners or the larger units within which
they work. This is because the current professional registers arose from
an era when health care was a smaller industry and was differently organised.
Most professionals now work in teams, rather than alone, and are employees.
Pharmacy is noted to be an exception to the rule, with 54 per cent of
community pharmacists being either community pharmacy proprietors or
self-employed locums. But the Society points out that only a minority
offer professional services direct to patients or the public without
some form
of oversight by an intermediary, such as an NHS primary care organisation.
The response calls into doubt the role of individual professions and
regulators in drawing up ethical codes for health professionals.
“
Behaviour and attitudes should be common to all health care professionals
and set out in a common ethical code drawn up by the Council for Healthcare
Regulatory Excellence and patient groups and widely consulted on,” it
says.
Commenting on the regulation of new and extended professional roles,
the Society warns Mr Foster that service development and innovation could
be hindered if regulation is too rigid.
“If practice and specialisation are tied down in legislation and
regulations, there are huge barriers to change, its states. “This
may prevent improvements to patient care and workforce development, and
that acts
against the public interest. Protocols and guidelines can be updated
more easily and allow for more flexibility.”
The full response is available on the Society’s website as a PDF file (200K). |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader