Society to protest that public safety will be put at risk by new legislation
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is to implement a campaign against proposed legislation that will allow overseas pharmacists to practise in Britain without having to comply with professional safeguards designed to protect the patients and the public.
At the June Council
meeting, the whole Council — pharmacists, pharmacy
technicians and lay members — agreed that the Society, working
with other health profession regulators and patient interest groups,
should alert members of Parliament and the news media to the health and
safety risks of the proposal.
The problem arises from proposals to implement an EU directive on the
recognition of professional qualifications for doctors, dentists, pharmacists,
nurses and midwives, architects and veterinary surgeons (Directive 2005/36/EC).
The Council’s concerns centre on a provision of the directive that
would introduce a new category of registrant, that of a “visiting
EEA practitioner”, for nationals of European Economic Area countries
wishing to provide professional services on a temporary or occasional
basis while remaining legally established in their profession in another
EEA member state.
The Council had before it a draft response to a Department for Education
and Skills consultation on implementing the directive. The response pointed
out that “temporary and occasional” was not defined and that
regulators would not be allowed to require advance information about
the duration of the services to be provided. There was nothing to prevent
a practitioner from benefiting from the provision for years.
The response also noted that the information that could be exchanged
between regulators in different member states was limited to the legality
of the person’s establishment in a member state, his good conduct
and “disciplinary matters or criminal sanction of a professional
nature”. This appeared to exclude information about other criminal
sanctions and matters relating to poor performance or health. It also
appeared that a practitioner who had had conditions imposed on his registration
in his home state for fitness-to-practise reasons could not be similarly
restricted when providing services temporarily in Britain.
The draft response went on to criticise a government decision that would
prevent the Society from requiring visiting EEA practitioners to comply
with its continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. In the
case of someone practising for a prolonged period, that decision did
not sit well with the objective of patient safety, the draft responses
said. Recipients of professional services had a right to expect the same
level of quality assurance whether the service was supplied by a temporary
or established practitioner.
The Council began its consideration of the matter in confidential business,
during which grave concern was expressed, particularly at the absence
of any provision that would require visiting practitioners to comply
with the profession’s CPD requirements. It was noted that this
was in stark contrast to the reforms of health regulation that aimed
to tighten up the requirements for the protection of the public and patients.
The Council approved the draft response, subject to minor amendment,
and then agreed to continue debate in public session so that its concerns
could be clearly on the record.
During a long debate, there was a consensus that the proposed legislation
represented a clear risk to the health and safety of patients and the
public. This view was shared equally by professional and lay Council
members. There was also general agreement that the Council should immediately
share its views with other health regulators, including
the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, and that the Society
should implement and lead a campaign to publicise the potentially serious
safety issues and risks.
Summarising the views of the meeting, the President said: “Whether
we e-mail or communicate with MPs, the point is that we should be communicating
with MPs. In terms of action points, we have taken comments on board.
We have had this debate in public. We will be working up a communication
plan involving other regulators. I will be writing to the acting chairman
of CHRE — because I sit there as a nominee of the Society — and
ask her for support, which I think will be forthcoming. We will take
steps with public relations advice to see what we can do in terms of
alerting MPs and the press. Is that agreed?”
A vote was then taken and the President’s proposal was agreed unanimously.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal