The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7464 p145
11 August 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

Society still concerned over revalidation requirements for EEA pharmacists

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has reiterated concerns about how the public will be protected following the implementation of an EU Directive allowing pharmacists from other member states to work temporarily in the UK without requirements for revalidation (PJ, 16 June, p715, and 23 June, p730).

In its responses to Department of Health and Department of Education and Skills consultations on the matter, the Society argues that aspects of the new legislation to embed the Directive, to be implemented by 20 October, are not consistent with the focus on patient safety that “must be at the heart of professional regulation”.

The Government’s interpretation and implementation of EU Directive 2005/36/EC will require the Society to set up a new category of registrant — the “visiting EEA practitioner”. However, under the proposals, such workers will be exempt from future continuing professional development and revalidation requirements designed to protect the public.

The Society voices concerns about the level of information about prospective registrants that it can request from registering bodies in other member states under the new legislation.

Furthermore, under the draft regulations, the Society will need to assess on a case-by-case basis the duration, frequency, regularity and continuity of a visiting practitioner’s work. However, neither the Directive nor the draft regulations define what is meant by “temporary and occasional”, the Society claims.

“The Society … is concerned that the proposed legislation makes it impossible for that judgement to be made because in the written declaration we cannot require the applicant to tell us in advance about the nature or duration of the services he is intending to provide.”

The Society also raises concerns that “the regulation of pharmacy is not consistent throughout Europe and that the service provider’s member state of establishment may well not have as robust fitness-to-practise procedures as in this country”.