| · Regulation
· Emergency contraception (3)
· Remote supervision
· Fitness to practise
· Medicines use reviews
· Council election (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Fitness to practise
Pharmacist lists do not exist yet
From Mr J. A. S. Buisson, MRPharmS
The article by Christopher Dunn (PJ, 6 May, p541) gives an unintentionally
misleading picture about primary care trusts and the fitness to practise
(FTP) of individual pharmacists.
The Department of Health has not yet laid regulations that would give PCTs
power over individual community pharmacists who are not contractors in
their own right. As such, both pharmacists and PCTs would be well advised
not to spend too much time and effort on this until, or even if, such powers
come into effect.
In fact, there is now a grave question of whether PCTs need such FTP powers
at all, given that the DoH is currently consulting on the Pharmacists
and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2006 (PJ, 1 April, p371), which will modernise
fitness to practise for all pharmacists in Great Britain.
PCT powers would only apply to those working in community pharmacy in somewhat
arbitrary geographical areas. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
powers apply to all British pharmacists, regardless of location or sector
of practice. Community pharmacy has a highly mobile labour force. It includes
a high percentage of self-employed locums and large multiple companies
that have both field- and office-based specialists covering wide geographic
and cross-border areas. Location-based registration is inappropriate for
this reason.
Duplication of registration would also have large cost implications, both
for PCTs and pharmacists. This is unnecessary and, given the current financial
climate in the NHS, unhelpful. The DoH should think carefully before extending
additional legislative burdens on pharmacists and PCTs.
Jonathan Buisson
NHS Strategy Manager
Alliance Pharmacy |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal