Redefine “practising” says College of Pharmacy Practice in Section 60 Order response
“Practising” needs to be differently defined in
the planned Section 60 Order on the future
regulation of pharmacy, the College of
Pharmacy Practice has said.
In its response to the Section 60 consultation
paper (PDF,
2.8Mb), the College of Pharmacy Practice said that this is necessary
to distinguish between
pharmacists and technicians who provide
pharmaceutical services direct to the
public and those who do not.
College chief executive Ian Simpson said: “If the main aim of the Section 60 Order is
to strengthen public protection, the proposed
definition of practising fails to do this.” Mr
Simpson explained that there is a significant
minority of pharmacists, and a smaller minority
of technicians, who would have to classify
themselves as practising under the proposed
definition, but who do not provide pharmaceutical
services to patients. Any of them —
and they may not have provided pharmaceutical
services for many years — could move
to a job providing such services without
changing their registration status. The only
barrier would be an ethical requirement that
pharmacists and technicians only accept work
for which they have the necessary skills.
The college also believes that the link between
registration and membership of the
Society should be removed, so that it would
be possible for a pharmacist to be a member
or fellow of the Society without being registered
as a pharmacist.
Another problem with the Order, in the
CPP’s view, is that the proposed powers given
to the Society to investigate a pharmacist or
technician are too wide and could prevent
the person being investigated from seeking
help and advice, other than from a lawyer. In
addition, the college said that the requirement
for indemnity insurance should take
into account whether or not the registrant is
providing pharmaceutical services to the
public and what indemnity his or her employer
provides. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader