Still much to play for
If anybody has any lingering doubts about how the Department of Health perceives the primary function of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, these will be laid to rest by the publication last week of the so-called Foster review “The regulation of the non-medical health professions” (p91).
Like it or not, the Society is seen to be the regulator of the pharmacy
profession (with a professional leadership role as an add-on). It is
not seen as a professional membership body that happens to regulate
the profession.
The most obvious manifestation of this is the DoH expectation, in its
desire to iron out any differences between the health regulators and
synchronise their structures and function, that some, if not all, professional
members of governing councils should be appointed and not elected. In
addition, professional members may be barred from appointment if they
hold a position in another national professional or defence body (see
p97).
The Foster review also expects the two roles undertaken by the Society — the
regulatory role and the professional leadership role — to be separated.
How this will be resolved will lead to further uncertainty for the profession,
which is a cause for regret after the upheavals of the past few years.
Some may hope that the final outcome will be two separate bodies whereby
regulation would remain with the Society and an institute (like a medical
royal college) could be formed. Others may wish to see regulation taken
from the Society so that it can retain its professional representative
function. A further group may hope that national boards with elected
representatives for the home countries (probably four, since the DoH
recommends the Society joins forces with the Pharmaceutical Society of
Northern Ireland) together with a largely appointed Council will fulfil
the requirement for separation of functions. These suggested scenarios,
of course, are not exhaustive.
However, there is much in the review (and the parallel review into medical
regulation that was published at the same time) that should make the
profession feel gratified. As The Journal pointed out in a leading
article earlier this year (28 January, p94) pharmacy can be proud of the way
it carries out its disciplinary functions. So much so, in fact, that
all the other health regulators are now expected to follow suit.
The DoH is keen that these changes are underpinned by cultural changes
in the NHS that take the blame out of regulation. If that is really the
case, there is one simple way to impress pharmacists and gain their respect:
repeal part of the Medicines Act 1968 so that dispensing errors are no
longer a criminal offence.
Although the Foster review makes for uncomfortable reading, the profession
still has much to play for: its leaders have to determine what solution
will leave pharmacy in the strongest position for the future.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal