Section 60: the Society's response
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has now responded
to the Department of Health consultation on the draft Pharmacists and
Pharmacy Technicians Order (the “Section
60 Order”) (PJ, 17 July, p707). Stephen Denyer, Council member and chairman of the Society's Section 60 response working group, writes
The Section 60 Order will fundamentally change the way we regulate
pharmacy and will have implications for all of us in our working lives.
Because
of this, the Council put a great deal of work and thought into its response
to the consultation (PJ, 17 July, p707). You can find
a copy at www.rpsgb.org/section60.
The response was informed by the feedback we received from pharmacists
and other pharmacy bodies and I thank everyone who took the
trouble to come back to us on this. We found it helpful and your comments
changed our thinking in certain areas.
The Journal has recently carried a series of articles about various
matters arising from the draft Order. It might be useful to touch on
a few of
the questions that proved particularly challenging and to explain why
we have finally come to the conclusions that we have.
Definition of “practising”
The draft Order defines “practising” as follows:
“For
the purposes of this Order, a person practises as a pharmacist or a pharmacy
technician if, while 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”
The time spent on this by the Council and the Section 60 response working
group, building on the deliberations of a previous working group, probably
indicates the impossibility of achieving a perfect definition in a few
words. Initially we thought that the Order definition might not be quite
right, and we have been through numerous suggested rewordings, some of
which would have lengthened the definition substantially as we struggled
to encompass every possibility. However, after we had consulted on this,
we were persuaded by the comments received that the definition should
be concise and not restricted to those in direct patient contact. It
would be best to have a broad definition in the Order with additional
clarification provided in guidance, which is likely to be more accessible
to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians than the Order itself.
Accordingly, the Council decided to request only one change to the Department’s
suggested wording. This was in response to concerns that the definition
in the Order might not cover pharmacists and pharmacy technicians who
give advice on pharmacy practice, perhaps at a national level, but do
not provide patient care directly. The Council recognised that the definition
includes “advice in relation to “ the provision of health care” but
believes that advice on the practice of pharmacy should be mentioned
explicitly within the definition. Accordingly, we have asked that the
definition be changed to say: “… gives any advice in relation
to the dispensing or use of medicines, the science of medicines, the
practice of pharmacy or the provision of health care”.
Ultimately, of course, the decision on practising status will be that
of the individual pharmacist or pharmacy technician, assisted by the
Society’s guidelines.
One other thing that concerned us about the definition was the position
of overseas pharmacists and pharmacy technicians who are registered with
both the Society and an overseas regulator. Such people may practise
in their country of residence but wish to retain their registration with
the Society on a non-practising basis. Currently, the Society allows
those who practise overseas but are not required to be registered with
the Society to go on the non-practising section of the Society’s
Register. We understand that the Department of Health’s intention
is that the definition of practising in the Order should apply worldwide.
This could lead to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in the position
described above leaving the Register altogether, rather than having to
meet the requirements for the Society’s practising register as
well as those of their local regulator.
We do not believe this would enhance public protection as such people
would not then be bound by the Society’s Code of Ethics, which
applies to those on both sections of the Registers. We have therefore
asked the Department to make provision in the Order to allow pharmacists
and pharmacy technicians who are practising overseas and are not required
to be registered with the Society to be able to be on the non-practising
section of the Society’s Register. Attitudes and behaviours
Most of our feedback on the proposal to consider attitudes and behaviours
as part of being appropriately qualified for registration has strongly
supported including this in the Order. Nevertheless, a number of
people have expressed concerns about how the Society would implement
this.
Some fear that it might be used as a means of penalising those whose
faces do not fit or who ask awkward questions.
Such concerns are understandable. But attitudes and behaviours are
a crucial part of what it means to be a professional. This provision,
if
we achieve it, will allow the Society to deal with the small minority
who consistently display behaviour inappropriate for a health care
professional. While we are still developing our thinking on how this
would be implemented,
the Society would not take action lightly and would be rigorous in
developing and implementing assessment procedures. This is an important
principle
for the future of pharmacy as a more clinical profession, and there
is good experience from other professions and other countries that
we can
draw on. You will read more about this in The Journal in due course
as we keep the profession informed as our thinking develops.
Powers of the CPD Committee
The draft Order provides for the Continuing Professional Development
Committee to be able to remove from the Register any person who has
breached the CPD requirements. It also allows for the committee to
suspend a person’s registration pending the outcome of an appeal
against a decision to remove them from the Register. The Order does
not state that the committee could suspend a person’s registration
in any other circumstances — for example, as an alternative sanction.
The Council believes that the CPD Committee should be renamed the CPD
Review Committee, and that it should take a primarily developmental rather
than disciplinary approach to those who appear not to have satisfied
the CPD requirements. This would help to establish CPD as an accepted
part of pharmacy practice.
We therefore took the view that the CPD Committee should have power to
suspend but not to remove a person from the Register. We also think the
committee should be able to accept undertakings — eg, to undergo
a period of supervised practice.
We recognise that, in some cases, the CPD Committee may feel that a pharmacist
or pharmacy technician should be removed from the Register for the protection
of the public. We therefore propose that the CPD Committee should be
able to make recommendations and referrals to the Disciplinary Committee
when required. When necessary, these should be fast-tracked.
We also believe that the CPD Committee should be able to require a pharmacist
or pharmacy technician to undertake additional education, training, experience
or CPD after they are restored to the Register, to provide flexibility
for the future.
The consultation on the draft Section 60 Order closed on 19 June 2006.
I hope that as many of you as possible took time to look at the consultation
document and send in your thoughts to the DH. We were assured that the
public consultation period offered a real opportunity to influence the
draft, which is why we spent so much time and trouble on our response.
Now it is over to the Department. I sincerely hope that it will listen,
both to us and to you, and that we will end up with the best possible
governing legislation for the Society. Once again, my thanks to everyone
who has taken part. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal