|
Lay majority expected
Revalidation and CPD
CHRE
|
|
Dreamstime.com
|
|
Commenting on the plans
The Department of Health says that it is keen to
hear comments from pharmacy stakeholders about the proposals in
the White Paper.
Those who would like to share their views can contact
Diana Kenworthy at 4th floor, Skipton
House, 80 London Road, London SE1 6LH
e-mail diana.kenworthy@dh.gsi.gov.uk |
Major changes to the way pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are regulated,
set out in the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007, are to
be followed by the creation of a General Pharmaceutical Council to take
over the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s regulatory role. It is
likely that the Order contains all the powers that the new GPC will need.
This new body is intended by the Government to operate in the same way
as all the other health regulatory bodies, including the reformed General
Medical Council, but the White Paper in which it was announced (“Trust, assurance and safety — the regulation of health professionals in the 21st century”) gives little information about the GPC itself.
It simply states that the GPC will be “responsible for the regulation
of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, and for the registration of
pharmacy premises. It will exercise the role of inspection of pharmacies
currently carried out by the RSPGB.”
Proposals for how the GPC and its operations are to be carved out of
the Society’s current activities are being prepared by a working
party chaired by Lord Carter of Coles that is expected to report to ministers
by the end of this month.
It is reasonable to assume that the role of the Society’s fitness
to practise directorate will go to the GPC. As it currently stands, the
same is probably true of the education and registration directorate.
At present, responsibilty for the Code of Ethics rests with the directorate
of practice and quality improvement, but there is a view that codes of
conduct properly sit within regulators, not professional bodies.
The White Paper states that a separate group will be set up to advise
on detailed implementation of the proposals that relate to all health
regulators, but it is possible that developments at the GMC will indicate
what will happen elsewhere.
Regardless of that, the White Paper gives some unmistakable clues about
the planned structure and functioning of the GPC.
Prime among these is that there will be parity of membership between
lay and professional members or a lay majority and that these people
will all be appointed by the Appointments Commission.
Lay majority expected
Parity of membership is set down as a minimum expectation for health
regulators. Any that does not accept a lay majority now will be subject
to review in 2011 to see whether it has won public confidence and avoided
accusations of partiality. That review will also consider whether any
regulators should merge.
The thinking behind the proposals for parity and appointment is that
any perception — whether justified or not — that decision-making
is biased must be avoided.
“The Government is convinced,” it says, “that in order
to establish and sustain confidence in the independence of regulators,
all
councils should be constituted to ensure that professionals do not form
a majority.”
The Government also intends that all councils will be smaller than at
present, that there should be little or no variation in size and that
they should function as strategic boards and leave operational issues
to their staff. Revalidation and CPD
The White Paper makes it clear that the GPC will be in charge of approving
standards that pharmacists and technicians must meet in order to maintain
their registration. How this is likely to work will depend on individuals’ working
arrangements. NHS employees will be revalidated via the NHS appraisal
system. Primary care commissioners will supervise the revalidation
of primary care contractors, but arrangements for contractors’ employees
are to be discussed with regulators and professional bodies. Arrangements
for self-employed professionals are to be developed by the regulators.
A UK-wide steering group will be set up to develop and co-ordinate
the proposals to make sure they work.
David Pruce, director of practice and quality improvement at the Society,
said: “The Society will wish to be part of any steering group that
develops proposals around
revalidation.”
One possibility might be that the profesional leadership body sets standards
for revalidation, those standards are then validated by the GPC and put
into operation by the professional body.
So far as education is concerned, regulators, such as the planned GPC,
will be responsible for assuring educational standards. But the White
Paper says nothing on any division of responsibility between regulators
and professional bodies in relation to prequalification education, postqualification
education and continuing professional development.
College of Pharmacy Practice chief executive Ian Simpson said: “What
the GPC should do is take advice from the professional leadership body
on educational and professional standards. It was suggested at the launch
of the White Paper that the royal college-type body might have responsibility
for revalidation. One way to demonstrate this to the GPC might be membership
of the royal college body.”
The two should work closely together, but it should be the royal college
that advises on standards for education and CPD, and runs any CPD arrangements,
Mr Simpson added.
He expected more clarity about the GPC proposals after the publication
of Lord Carter’s working party report.
Anthony Smith, dean of the School of Pharmacy, University of London,
believes that the GPC should set the basic standards necessary for pharmacists
to practise, but leave advanced work to the professional leadership body.
“The regulator will be about minima, the standards necessary for revalidation.
It will be for pharmacists to give evidence of how they meet those standards.
That is where the royal college comes in, in partnership with the NHS
and employers. … The royal college has to be aspirational about
how to take those minimum standards further and develop practice.”
Changes to the investigatory and adjudication roles of regulators are
also proposed.
In the case of the non-medical regulators, such as the new GPC, the proposition
is that a new independent body will list individuals who have been approved
to sit on FTP committees. Over time, there is the suggestion that adjudication
for all professionals should be handed over to the new independent body. CHRE
Changes will also be made to the Council for Healthcare Regulatory
Excellence. The council will become smaller and individual regulators
will lose
the right to nominate members. Instead all members will be appointed
by the Appointments Commission. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal