Council agrees the way forward in response to its consultation on proposed Rules relating to fitness to practise and registration
The Council has agreed mechanisms for progressing its proposed Rules relating to fitness to practise and registration in the light of the responses to its consultation
on the proposals (PJ, 1 July,
p23).
The Council heard at the October
Council meeting that the 54 responses
to the consultation, which took place between 3 July and 22 September,
had now been analysed. The responses were generally supportive of the
proposals and provided useful and constructive comments on aspects of
the new procedures.
On the registration process, there had been overwhelming support for
the Council’s decision to employ the same registration process
for both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. At present technicians
are given three months before the due day for payment and are struck
off if payment is not received by that date. Pharmacists, however, are
notified closer to the due date and are given a period of grace after
that date. They also receive reminders.
The Council agreed that the same system should apply to both groups and
resolved to consider which system should be adopted for all registrants.
It also agreed to consider whether or not a recent medical certificate
should be required as part of the process of applying for registration.
The Council noted that there had been broad support for its proposed
definition
of “good character” and for the use of an assessment framework
in determining whether applicants for registration were of “good
character”. The Council noted that respondents had suggested the
inclusion of a number of additional indicators of good character and
it agreed to consider whether or not to include these indicators in the
assessment framework.
On the criteria used by the Infringements Committee in deciding whether
or not to refer a case for a hearing, the Council noted that there had
been broad support and some possibly useful suggestions. It was agreed
that these suggestions should be considered.
It was noted that most respondents had supported the proposed definition
of “deficient professional performance” and some useful comments
had been made. It
was agreed that the issues raised should
be considered by the Law and Ethics Committee as part of a future workstream
on detailed proposals for the assessment of professional performance.
Useful comments had also been received on the role of the specialist
adviser. There had been a consensus that these advisers should be objective
and independent, and the Council agreed that a requirement for objectivity
and independence should be incorporated into the Rules and appointments
process.
In response to comments on a proposal concerning the imposition of interim
orders before a hearing by a disciplinary committee, it was agreed that
draft guidance on when to apply for an interim order should be prepared
for consideration by the Council in due course.
Useful suggestions had also been received in respect of the potential
undertakings and conditions that could be accepted or imposed by the
new fitness to practise committees and in respect of the circumstances
in which it might be appropriate to suspend a registrant. The Council
agreed that comments and suggestions on these topics should be passed
to the new committees for consideration.
The Council noted that comments on the power of the new committees to
award costs included a number of suggestions about the circumstances
in which the committee should exercise that power and what the costs
should cover. It was agreed that a draft policy on this issue should
be prepared for the Law and Ethics Committee to consider in due course.
On restoration to the Register, the Council noted that respondents had
broadly supported its suggestions as to the matters that the Disciplinary
Committee should take into account when deciding whether or not to restore
a person’s name to the Register. There had also been useful suggestions
about the sorts of evidence that the committee should take into account
and about the content and format of refresher training that could provide
evidence of suitability for restoration. The Council agreed that comments
on the matters and evidence to be taken into account should be passed
to the Disciplinary Committee for consideration and that the proposals
on the content and format of refresher training should be presented to
the Education Committee for consideration in due course.
Responding to additional issues identified by respondents, the Council
agreed that the draft registration criteria should be amended to ensure
that a former registrant’s existing qualifications, taken together
with previous inclusion on the Register, should automatically count as
evidence of appropriate qualification for restoration to the Register.
Finally, the Council made two decisions that would be subject to the
approval of Department of Health lawyers. One was an amendment to the
fitness-to-practise Rules to make it clear that the Disciplinary Committee
would recommend policy decisions to the Council rather than make such
decisions itself. The other was the inclusion in the Rules of existing
Council guidance in respect of certain road traffic offences.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal