Concern over revalidation ideas in regulation reports
Information gained in appraisals could be used for revalidation
purposes |
Concerns over a potential conflict of interest if employers play a significant
role in the revalidation of pharmacists are raised by several bodies
responding to the reports “The
regulation of the non-medical healthcare professions” and “Good
doctors, safer patients”,
consultation on which ended last week.
The so-called Foster and Donaldson reports argue that although regulators
will set standards for staying on the register, information already collected
by employers (such as that from appraisals) should be used for revalidation
purposes.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society points out that revalidation might be
used by health service providers as a way of getting rid of unwanted
employees. It also highlights that employers could experience conflicting
demands between meeting government-set performance targets and the need
to protect the public.
The Pharmacists’ Defence Association echoes these concerns. “It
would be inconceivable to contemplate a situation where employers would
be allowed to revalidate a pharmacist. This process would have the potential
effect, in the highly commercial environment of community pharmacy, to
prevent any pharmacists from resisting employer policies that they consider
to be unsafe for patients,” it says.
The Guild
of Healthcare Pharmacists is also worried. “There needs
to be a robust system of accreditation of employers and a means of redress
for individuals treated unfairly.” The Company Chemists’ Association
believes that it is premature to define in detail the arrangements that
may be appropriate for revalidation of pharmacists. “At least two
cycles of continuing professional development assessment will be required
to determine their effectiveness before revalidation should be introduced,” it
says.
The need for a consistent approach between the regulation of medical
and non-medical professions is also emphasised by a number of bodies.
The Society says that inconsistencies between the reports perpetuate “medical
exceptionalism”. “This was evident in the creation of separate
reviews for medical and non-medical regulation, and persists in the conclusions
of the two reports,” it says. The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating
Committee agrees. “There is no reason why the regulation of all
health care professions should not follow core principles,” it
says.
On separating the Society’s professional and regulatory roles,
the PDA says that this should be undertaken as a matter of urgency and
that plans to implement the Section 60 Order should be suspended to allow
for a timely separation of roles. The PSNC, too, is of the opinion that
the Society should split; the National Pharmacy Association believes
there should be “a split in the professional and regulatory roles”.
In reality, says the NPA, the Society has in recent times been moving
in the direction of a regulatory role at the expense of being a professional
body.
The Society expresses concerns about the lack of evidence for many conclusions
in the Foster report and the lack of costings for the proposals. In its
response, it says that there is no evidence that the non-medical regulators
have been slow to identify or deal with serious failings, or evidence
that they have slowed down the pace of change in respect of professional
or service development.
News feature, p601
Society, p619 |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader