Home > PJ (current issue) > News / News Centre | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 278 No 7452 p573
19 May 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader


News summary

Related websites
Separating professional regulation and representation General Pharmaceutical Council and a royal college-type body for the Society


Royal college will destroy pharmacy infrastructure, says IPMI

Establishing a new royal college structure in pharmacy will take many years and will destroy much of pharmacy's infrastructure, the Institute of Pharmacy Management International has said. It has also warned that consultations on professional regulation have gone beyond their remit and breached Cabinet Office guidelines.

Commenting on proposals for a royal college-type structure for pharmacy, the IPMI said that such a model suits the NHS and medical specialties but its role outside the NHS is unclear. A chartered institute or society model would be more appropriate to lead pharmacy. An institute or society can be subject specific rather than specialty or profession specific and can have a variety of membership categories. Its substructure can also provide for specialisations and higher qualifications.

“A review of other options to a college is imperative, as is an analysis of what would be lost by dissolving the [Royal Pharmaceutical] Society,” the institute said.

It added: “The White Paper has generated unintended consequences beyond regulation and appears to have been generated by a process that has been unfair and rushed with inadequate consultation. … The RPSGB should consider taking action to avoid being driven, against its members’ will, down a route that might destroy the profession.”

The institute points out that Cabinet Office guidelines for consultation on regulatory proposals say: “Regulation should be focused on the problem. You should aim to minimise side effects and ensure that no unintended consequences will result from the regulation being implemented.”

The IPMI view is that these guidelines have been breached, because the current proposals arise from a review that did not have a remit to consider professional leadership.

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal