The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7399 p528
6 May 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 40K, Acrobat Reader

Indemnity cover to be compulsory for all pharmacists and technicians

All pharmacists and pharmacy technicians will need to have adequate and appropriate indemnity arrangements in place if Department of Health proposals go ahead. Tom Moberly (on the staff of The Journal) looks at the details of this and other developments outlined in the draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order

In its consultation on the draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order, under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999, the Government proposes that it be a statutory requirement for all pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to have “adequate and appropriate” indemnity arrangements in place.

The move towards making indemnity arrangements statutory is in line with Government policy, which now requires that all health professional regulation legislation contains requirements relating to professional indemnity arrangements, Christine Gray, head of corporate governance at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, explains.

Details of what would constitute “adequate and appropriate” indemnity arrangements — and how the Society would satisfy itself that those on the practising register were covered by such arrangements — are not defined in the order and have not yet been determined. Such details would be covered in rules under Article 38 of the Order, or in guidance, or both, Ms Gray says, and the Society will be consulting on these in due course.

Such arrangements will not be a new consideration for pharmacists, she adds, since the Society’s Code of Ethics and Standards already requires that all activities they undertake are covered by professional indemnity arrangements. However, Ms Gray warns that consideration will need to be given to the suitability of indemnity arrangements for different sectors of the profession.

“For example, careful thought will need to be given to exactly what is necessary for those working in academia,” she says. Also, in many cases, employers will already have appropriate indemnity arrangements in place.

“In such a case, however, it will still be the responsibility of the individual to check that such cover fulfils the Society’s requirements and, if it does not, to put appropriate cover in place themselves,” Ms Gray says. “Non-practising pharmacists and pharmacy technicians would also need to be clear about their potential liability in relation to their duty of care if they gave advice while registered as non-practising and not covered by indemnity arrangements,” she warns.

Indemnity arrangements could take the form of insurance schemes, Ms Gray explains. But, she adds, they would not be limited to such schemes, since conventional insurance may not be appropriate for all members of the professions.

“Conventional insurance contains elements of uncertainty and interest that contravene the rules of shariah [the Muslim code of religious law] and so might clash with the religious views of Muslim pharmacists or pharmacy technicians,” Ms Gray says. “However, we understand there is an alternative form of cover, known as takaful, or Islamic insurance, which is based on the concept of resources being pooled to help the needy and which does not contradict shariah,” she explains. “It is likely that the Society will be assessing takaful as one of the possible indemnity arrangements when the time comes,” she adds.

If Article 21 of the draft Order comes into force as it stands, the Society’s register for pharmacy technicians will become statutory and the Society’s Council will establish the rules under which the register is maintained.

Registrants will be able to practise as pharmacy technicians and to use the title “Pharmacy technician” anywhere in Great Britain and would be subject to the Society’s continuing professional development requirements and to its Code of Ethics for pharmacy technicians but, since the Order would only apply to England and Wales, pharmacy technicians who practise only in Scotland will not be obliged to register with the Society, Ms Gray explains. “However,” she adds, “pharmacy technicians in Scotland will still be able to register with the Society, and will be more than welcome to do so.”

As with the current Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists, the proposed Pharmacy Technicians Register would be divided into practising and non-practising parts and it would be an offence in England and Wales for someone to claim falsely that he or she is either on the register of Pharmacy Technicians or in a particular part of the register.

The draft Order explains that, to be entitled to register as non-practising, technicians would have to give the Society “in the prescribed form” a commitment not to practise. The definition of what would constitute practising is set out in the draft Order and applies to both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.

It states: “A person practises as a pharmacist or a pharmacy technician if, whilst acting in the capacity of or holding himself out as a pharmacist or a pharmacy technician, he undertakes any work or gives any advice in relation to the dispensing or use of medicines, the science of medicines or the provision of health care.”

Statutory registration for pharmacy technicians would do more than just add to requirements being placed on pharmacy technicians, however, Ms Gray says. “Being on the Society’s register will mean that pharmacy technicians can demonstrate to employers and others that they have met the requirements for registration, have agreed to comply with the Society’s Code of Ethics for pharmacy technicians and are in good standing with the Society,” she explains.

“It would also recognise the growing part that pharmacy technicians are playing in delivering health services and the increased responsibility they have for patient care,” she adds.

Ms Gray is also keen to point out that although pharmacists and pharmacy technicians will both be registered health professions, this does not mean that the two should be seen as equivalent or that pharmacists and technicians will be doing the same things.

“The arrangements will be similar to those operated by the General Dental Council for dentists and other dental care professionals, such as dental hygienists and dental therapists. Pharmacy technicians work closely in teams with just one other main group — pharmacists — to common expectations and sharing a common ethos, and regulation by the Society is the best way to recognise this,” she says.