| • Fitness to practise (2)
• CD storage
• Aspirin
• Pharmacist prescribing
• English pharmacy board
• Society publications
• Onlooker
• The Journal
• Ethics (2)
• Retention fees (2)
• The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Inspectors’ powers
From Dr G. E. Appelbe, FRPharmS
I was delighted to see that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
Infringements Committee has expressed the view that inspectors should
have power to resolve
many problems at local level rather than report
them back direct to the Society (PJ, 23/30 December 2006, p773). I was
further delighted to see that the chairman of the Infringements Committee
is quoted as saying that the committee believed the inspectorate to be
one of the Society’s greatest assets and that many cases low down
the committees agenda could be dealt with by the inspectorate locally
subject to the Council’s support. I wholeheartedly agree.
But what is new? The inspectorate had these powers from before the time
I joined the inspectorate in 1964 until two or three years ago. In addition
the chief inspector was authorised by the Council to caution and warn
pharmacists in relation to semi-serious infringements. About two to three
years ago the system changed and those discretionary powers were withdrawn,
for what reason I do not know. The inspectors were instructed to report
all infringements, however small, direct to the Society, thus creating
a log-jam in the office. Many pharmacists had the sword of Damocles hanging
over their heads for months or even a year or more thus creating an unjust
system.
I welcome the view of the Infringements Committee as I am sure would
all the membership. The inspectors are a knowledgeable and fair group
of pharmacists dedicated to their work. The Council should therefore
endorse the views of its Infringements Committee and return to the earlier
system which was highly efficient, cost-effective and just.
Gordon Appelbe
London
| |
JACKIE GILTROW, chief inspector, Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, responds:
The regulatory landscape has changed dramatically
over the past three to four years and although I appreciate Dr Appelbe’s
comments about the fairness and dedication of the inspectorate, there
are a number of
fundamental principles that must be observed when it comes to the administration
and operation of a regulatory fitness-to-practise system. In particular,
the Society must seek to ensure that there is proper separation of powers
in order to ensure that those who are involved in investigating alleged
fitness to practise issues are not also involved in the adjudication
process. In addition, the concerns set out by Dame Janet Smith, in the
Fifth Report
of the Shipman Inquiry, on the issues of “screening” are
well known and together with the potential for inconsistent, arbitrary
and
unjust decision making, lack of transparency and abuse of discretion,
these highlight just some of the obstacles to be overcome before adopting
a system along the lines of that proposed.
These issues, coupled with the fact that the use of the inspectors
as screeners for complaints is not permitted in the Society’s forthcoming
Section 60 Order, mean that the Society could potentially be in danger
of acting ultra vires
by operating in this manner. This is not to say that the Council, as a matter
of policy, could not seek to progress the necessary changes to enable a system
whereby inspectors could have the ability to deal with less serious issues
at local level subject to them operating within strict parameters agreed
by the
Council, and I am sure that the Council will debate these issues carefully
in the coming months. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal