Council to commission review of Society's future structure
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, after a long
debate (see p750), has decided to commission an independent review of the Society's structure, organisation and functions with the aim of producing a structure that will clarify the separation of the Society's regulatory and professional functions, possibly by splitting the Society in two.
The Council’s decision was made in the light of the Government-commissioned
reviews of regulation of health care professions — the Foster review
of “The regulation of non-medical health care professions” and
the Donaldson review of the regulation of the medical profession, “Good
doctors, safer patients”. The Council had before it a document
setting out the factors that might influence any decision on the Society’s
future structure.
In its formal response to the Foster report, the Society had argued that
the report presented no evidence that the Society’s integrated
professional and regulatory roles had had a detrimental affect on public
safety, the standards achieved by the pharmacy profession or the quality
of pharmacy services. However, the Council had also had to take note
of the opinions of chief pharmaceutical officers for Scotland, Bill Scott,
and for England, Keith Ridge, who seemed
to be advocating the splitting of the Society to put clear sky between regulation and professional leadership
(PJ, 9 September, p313).
After considering all relevant factors, the consensus of Council members
during its debate was that the integrated role, despite its success,
was no longer viable within the current political climate. The Council
therefore made two decisions. The first was to support the request in
the Foster review for a “clarification of the separation of regulatory
and professional functions”. The second was to support an independent
review of the Society’s structure, organisation and functions in
order to make recommendations for a satisfactory solution to the Foster
review’s request for clarification.
The Council further agreed that the independent review should:
• Consider the principles of separation of functions
• Consult widely, and in particular, with members of the profession
• Consider the options and models
• Consider the implications, including: efficient and economical linkages;
membership and registration links; legal, human resource and financial
matters; benefits, risks and costs
• Propose a way forward
The Council also agreed to set up a steering group for the independent
review of the Society. On behalf of the Council, the steering group would:
• Ensure that the independent review was going forward within timescale
and that there were no barriers to timeliness
• Receive and instruct legal advice on the human resources implications
and legal advice specific to the duties and responsibilities of Council
and Council members
• Report back to the Council as appropriate
The steering group would be established under the Council’s standard
operating procedures for working groups. It would be asked to report
on progress at the March 2007 Council meeting. The group would continue
in existence until the independent review is completed.
During discussion it was agreed that the steering group should consist
of the President, the Vice-President and the Treasurer plus two lay members
of Council.
The President asked Council members to submit names of lay members to
join the group. All names would be considered because of different people’s
different expertise. The aim would be to create a balanced team.
Rob Darracott, the Society’s director of corporate and strategic
development, drew attention to an example of how a review might be conducted.
A review conducted on behalf of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
had been a clear two-stage process. During the initial evidence-gathering
stage, the reviewer, Sir Brian Carlsberg, had consulted widely with members
as well as with specific groups, specific people and other stakeholders.
Then in the important post-decision implementation phase, the members
had been brought together to understand what the outcome of the consultatiotn
meant.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal