Concerns about profession's interface with the GPC
Concerns about the interface between the proposed General Pharmaceutical Council and a professional leadership body “akin to a royal college” have been expressed by members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council. During a debate at the March
Council meeting, Council members also expressed concern at the undue haste with which the negotiations were being conducted by the Government.
The Council was reminded that the White Paper “Trust, assurance
and safety, the regulation of health professionals in the 21st century” set
out the Government’s intention to establish a GPC with broadly
the same remit as the Society’s current regulatory functions. It
also commented on the need for a body “akin to a royal college”,
which would have an important role in revalidation and contribute its
expertise to the GPC, so there would be a close working between the two
bodies.
The President, Hemant Patel, said that one concern was the interface
issue between the GPC and the royal college — an interface that,
as an integrated body, the Society had been able to manage easily. Effective
working and communication between the GPC and the royal college would
be crucial to the future of the profession. Areas where the royal college
might work with the GPC included:
• Developing standards of practice and performance
• Developing and delivering standards of education and training
• Promoting standards of conduct and ethics
• Supporting continuing professional development
• Supporting revalidation (when introduced in three to four years’ time)
• Supporting those wishing to return to practice after a break, those
wishing to advance through specialist levels of practice, those in the
early days of practice and those moving between specialisms and areas
of practice
• Supporting students and overseas applicants wishing to register with
the GPC
That list, said the President, clearly demonstrated that the GPC and
the body akin to a royal college had to work together. If the public
and profession were to benefit, maximum attention had to be paid to this
interface.
Bob Michell said that the President was right to emphasise the importance
of the interface. It would be clearly demonstrated in the key area of
revalidation because setting up and delivering a revalidation scheme
was extremely demanding on resources. The introduction of revalidation
was likely to be delayed substantially by the need for negotiation between
two bodies with different interests, both still finding their feet. That
would clearly not be in the interests of patients.
Professor Michell added that what was arising from this new approach
to health care regulation was a radical reform of both the regulation
of pharmacy and the representation of pharmacists. It was in everybody’s
interest to get that right. He therefore would dearly love to know what
was the motivating force for the inordinate haste with which the negotiations
to establish the new bodies were being conducted. It appeared that much
was being decided on the hoof and quite differently to the original intentions
of the meetings. As someone who was on the Council to represent the public
interest, he did not know whose interest was served by the inordinate
haste. It was certainly not in the interests of patients.
The President said that he could not answer the question because he too
failed to understand the need for such haste. But the Society had to
work with the Government to ensure that it could make appropriate representations
when they were necessary.
Professor Michell said that he had a further comment. If there was doubt
about the dangers of such haste, one only had to look at the track record
of the Department of Health on things that it had done in haste. The
three outstanding examples were: the introduction of a changed basis
for out-of-hours care of patients, which had proved hugely expensive
to introduce and was going to be hugely expensive to put right; the cack-handed
way in which the centralisation of patient records has been handled;
and the inept way in which the training scheme for young consultants
had been mishandled. None of these examples gave one any confidence that
things that the department did hastily could be done well, either in
the interests of patients or in the interests of tax-payers.
Stephen Denyer said that it was important to remember that much of the
reason behind the White Paper was to achieve consistency across regulators.
It did not indicate any lack of achievement or lack of success on the
part of the Society. Indeed, the Society had been at the vanguard of
anticipating Government intentions and improving regulatory and professional
practice. It was starting from a position of strength in that regard.
Agreeing, the President said that the Council for Healthcare Regulatory
Excellence had consistently given the Society a clean bill of health.
It was a leader in many areas of regulation, and that had been commented
on by the CHRE.
Sid Dajani said that it was important to emphasise that the communications
emanating from the Society were being issued at the earliest opportunity,
when it was allowed to do so. No one should be able to complain that
the Society has not consulted earlier.
The President thanked Mr Dajani for clarifying that fact. The Society
had been asked not to discuss various points emerging from the White
Paper until given clearance from the Department of Health.
Mr Dajani said that the consultations with the profession had to be as
early as possible and as well informed as possible. One message he would
like to see was that, although the pharmacy family made the profession,
pharmacists should not be allowed to lose their professional identity. “It
is the profession which has driven a lot of the good work that we have
done. It is the pharmacists who have been allowed self-regulation through
statutory legislation to do the good work that we have done. It is important
that we recognise that pharmacists in their own right have an expertise,
have a specialty, that will benefit the public. We are so diverse in
the roles that we do. If we dilute that any further, then we will not
end up with a pharmacist-led organisation or even as a college or even
as a profession.”
The President said that, on Mr Dajani’s point about consultation,
he could give an assurance that it was the desire of the Officers to
ensure that consultation took place at an early stage. For example, following
publication of the White Paper, the Society had immediately called a
meeting of branch representatives at Lambeth on 9 March. But it could
not win — some people had not liked the meeting being called in
such a hurry (as they saw it) and had wanted more time.
Michael Schofield said that he had worked with the minister responsible,
Lord Hunt, on the predecessor organisation to the NHS Confederation.
One thing they had been concerned to do was to keep in touch not just
with Government but also with the Opposition, and they had had regular
sessions with the Opposition health spokesman and colleagues. At an appropriate
time, the Society should open a dialogue with the parliamentary opposition
for two reasons: first, because as matters evolved they would be able
to ask relevant questions that might help the Society; secondly, because
proposals drawn up by one government may fall to another to introduce,
and the more one could build the dialogue beforehand the more helpful
it would be.
Thanking Professor Schofield for his contribution, the President said
that representatives of the Society had already met Andrew Lansley, the
Opposition health spokesman. They had briefed him as well as they could,
but there were limitations. And Sandra Gidley (the LibDem health spokeswoman)
was a member of the Carter working party.
Professor Michell said that one thing that had struck him as outrageous — with
all the nonsense of openness, transparency and all the rest of it — was
that the negotiations had been conducted as if they concerned the future
concealment of weapons of mass destruction. “Everything possible
has been done,” he said, “to gag those involved in the negotiations
to thoroughly prevent timely consultation with the membership. Frankly,
as someone who is a member of Council, it has given me great concern
that so much effort has gone into preventing us from consulting the membership
and perhaps also leading their opinion towards the new realities.” |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal