| In less than three years, parliamentary time permitting, a new
regulatory body for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians should be fully
functional,
having taken over the regulatory powers of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
The recent
report of Lord Carter of Coles (PJ, 19 May, p573) proposed
that the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) will first be created
in shadow form, starting with the appointment of a chairman and board
by 1 June 2009. Staff will be employed and trained during 2009, ready
to take on the substantive functions of the planned GPhC on 1 January
2010.
In his foreword, Lord Carter writes that there is no doubt in his mind
that a GPhC should be formed, as decided by the Government in its White
Paper “Trust, assurance and safety” (PJ, 24 February, p207). “I
have heard no significant dissent from this during the time of the working
party. Indeed there was positive support,” he wrote.
The report sets out the functions of the proposed GPhC under four headings:
setting and promoting standards; education and training; registration;
and fitness to practise.
Although the statutory responsibility for standard setting will lie with
the GPhC, it is envisaged that the royal college-type body will complement
and reinforce the regulatory body’s role in determining and securing
initial fitness to practise, says the report.
GPhC functions
It is proposed that the General Pharmaceutical
Council will:
• Set standards for preregistration and
postregistration education and training
• Set standards for the conduct and ethics expected of registrants
• Set standards for practice and performance
• Set standards for the content and frequency of monitoring of continuing
professional development
• Approve courses, institutions and qualifications
• Maintain a register of pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and premises
• Determine initial fitness to practise of potential registrants
• Investigate impaired fitness to practise and adjudicate fitness to
practise cases
|
Setting and promoting standards
The planned GPhC will be responsible for setting standards for preregistration
and postregistration education and training, for the conduct and
ethics expected of registrants and for proficiency, including practice
and
performance.
The report says that, in establishing these standards, the GPhC will
be required to consult any new royal college. It will also need to
consult representatives of registrants, employers of registrants,
the public,
and education and training providers, it says. Education and training
The GPhC will be responsible for the approval of courses, institutions
and qualifications, against the standards it has set for pre- and
postregistration education and training. This will include arrangements
for both academic
education and clinical training.
It will also be responsible for setting standards for both the content
and frequency of monitoring of continuing professional development,
linked to renewal of registration and revalidation, says the report. Registration
The GPhC will be required to maintain registers of pharmacists, pharmacy
technicians and premises. The role of the Society’s inspectors
will also be transferred to the GPhC.
It will determine initial fitness to practise of prospective registrants
by checking that they are competent to practise safely and effectively,
that they meet European requirements and that they have paid the relevant
fee.
The new regulatory body will also be in charge of annotating the register
to denote postregistration qualifications, such as those for supplementary
and independent prescribers, the report proposes. Fitness to practise
As well as establishing and promoting professional standards, the GPhC
will be responsible for investigating allegations of impaired fitness
to practise, for example misconduct, deficient professional performance,
adverse physical or mental health or a criminal conviction.
The GPhC will also adjudicate fitness to practise cases, using panellists
drawn from a list appointed, trained and maintained by a new independent
adjudicator, Lord Carter says.
This new independent body was proposed in the “Trust, assurance
and safety” White Paper to adjudicate on fitness to practise cases
involving the medical profession. The new body will be charged with establishing
a central list of vetted and approved potential panellists, which the
other health regulators can draw on in order to conduct independent adjudication
panels within their own organisations. Transitional arrangements
To maintain effective regulatory function during the transitional period — fundamental
in guaranteeing public protection — it is essential to ensure that
there is an efficient transfer of the specialist skills of those currently
managing and undertaking activities related to regulation, says the report.
Lord Carter recommends that human resources guidance is developed and
implemented to ensure that the responsibilities assumed by the GPhC are
sufficiently well harmonised with those relinquished by the Society.
He also recommends that a Pharmacy Regulation and Leadership Oversight
Group should be created by the Department of Health to develop and manage
an operational timetable for the establishment and implementation of
the GPhC.
The future of pharmacy regulation in Northern Ireland is still being
considered by Northern Ireland ministers. It has not yet been decided
whether the responsibilities of the GPhC should become UK-wide.
Section 60 implementation
Transition of regulatory powers to the General
Pharmaceutical Council is made slightly more complicated by the
publication of
the Pharmacists
and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007, says Lord Carter’s
report.
“Currently, fitness to practise committee structures are being implemented
by the RPSGB and panellists have been recruited and trained to
undertake adjudication functions. From 2008, evidence of ongoing CPD will become
a condition of continued registration as a pharmacist and the Register
of Pharmacy Technicians will be introduced,” it says.
Christine Gray, the Society’s head of corporate governance,
told The Journal: “During the transitional period, the Society
will be working with others towards new arrangements for professional
leadership and development within pharmacy. It will also be implementing
the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order. These factors add
to the complexity of the transition. However, the move to a GPhC
would have seemed even more demanding without the work already
done to develop and implement the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians
Order.
“The Society is keen to ensure that it is able to maintain high standards
of public protection during the period until the GPhC is up and
running. The transition will need to be managed carefully, so as to avoid
any increased risk to the public, patients or the profession,” she
said. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal