Society rejects primary care trust performers' lists
Lists of pharmacists working for the NHS that would be kept by primary care trusts have been rejected by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and other pharmacy organisations.
In its response (PDF 40K) to a review of the system — under
which PCTs keep lists of doctors, dentists and pharmacy contractors (but
not
individual
pharmacists) so that they can be stopped from working in the NHS in cases
of serious transgression — the Society said that its powers under
the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2006 were all that was
needed.
“There is no justification for the operation of a parallel system
of fitness to practise for pharmacists operated at local level,” the
Society said. It expressed concern about the duplication of information
on different
registers which it believed was unnecessary and risked some details being
out of date.
“If continued use is made of the lists but they are held centrally/virtually,” the
Society went on, “it would seem natural for them to sit with the
appropriate regulator.”
Despite this, the Society said that it was important that PCTs could
take action against health professionals in cases where a regulator was
unable to do so or refused to do so. It supported the role of the National
Clinical Assessment Service in this regard.
The Company Chemists’ Association also opposed local lists, saying
that central registers held by regulators were the only sensible places
for information to be held.
The National Pharmacy Association said that the new regulatory regime
for pharmacy meant that there was no need for PCTs to keep lists of either
contractors or individual pharmacists.
Michelle Styles, NPA acting director of practice, said: “In our
view, PCT staff are not adequately trained to carry out the investigation
of poorly performing pharmacists and may not be resourced to deal with
fitness-to- practise issues effectively. Disciplinary issues concerning
pharmacists should be dealt with by a properly resourced professional
regulatory body at a national level.”
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader