|
Consultation started this week on the possible form of a future professional
body, or bodies, to take over the professional leadership role currently
exercised by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
Nigel Clarke, chairman of an independent inquiry commissioned
by the Society, said: “The purpose of this inquiry is to ensure
that we receive the maximum amount of feedback from pharmacists themselves.
A
professional body will only be successful if pharmacists join it and
they will only join it if it is providing them with value.
“Our job is
to determine what the profession thinks would be valuable in terms of
services to be provided by the professional body and to set out recommendations
on that basis.”
Mr Clarke said that he wants to hear from anyone who thinks that a professional
body has something to offer them, regardless of whether they are currently
members of the Society. This includes pharmacy technicians and pharmaceutical
scientists.
“It’s extremely important that the whole profession in all
its shapes and forms gets involved in this debate,” Mr Clarke said. “A
professional body that is perceived by parts of the profession not to
properly represent their interests isn’t going to work.”
All submissions will be published on the inquiry
website unless the sender asks for it to be kept confidential.
However, Mr Clarke said that people who want their submissions to be
treated as confidential
should reflect on whether this might undermine their arguments. People
will also be allowed to comment on other people’s submissions and
these will be published so that an iterative debate can develop.
The consultation document published on the inquiry website this week
does not set out possible models that a new professional body might follow.
Instead, it lists a small number of bodies, such as the British Medical
Association, the Society of Radiographers and the Engineering Council
UK, as examples that can be looked at.
“We have not set out all the options, because there is a huge number
and as soon as we set out options in detail, any that we have not included
we have effectively excluded from the discussion.”
Instead, the paper sets out a range of issues that need to be taken into
account, such as the potential scope of a future professional body — including
possible trade union functions — along with roles in professional
standards, undergraduate education, preregistration training, postregistration
education, continuing professional development, revalidation, and possible
sectoral academies.
Public meetings
Public meetings will be
held around Great Britain so that people can contribute to the
debate (PDF 40K).
Each will be attended by Mr Clarke, the inquiry
secretariat and one member of the panel of advisers.The venues
and exact
times of the meetings will be published on the inquiry
website.
The meetings will be timed to
maximise the number of people that can attend. Mr Clarke
has indicated
that he is particularly keen to hear the views of locums
and hospital pharmacists. |
Evidence sessions
Key stakeholders will be invited to sessions where
they will be questioned about their submissions. Individuals
who have submitted evidence that merits exploration and that
can take the debate forwards will also be invited.
• 23 Novembe,r Cardiff
• 30 November, London
• 5 December, London
• 19 December, London
• 10 January 2008, Edinburgh
|
Mr Clarke set out only one constraint on any recommendations
he might make. He said: “We have made it clear that any recommendations
that come from this inquiry have to be congruent with the direction of
travel of the new regulator.”
John Thompson, clerk
to the inquiry, advised that individuals and organisations should not
wait until the end of January 2008 before
making their submissions. “The
sooner they respond, the more useful it will be for us and for the profession,” he
said.
Mr Clarke’s report will be handed to the Society in March 2008
and will be considered by the Society’s Council in April. The Society
is expected to publish the report before its annual general meeting in
May 2008.
Members of Mr Clarke’s
expert advisory panel
Mr Clarke has an advisory panel of three experts,
none of whom is a pharmacist. Mr Clarke said: “There are
no pharmacists on the panel because if you have one pharmacist,
then you have
to have several. And our remit does not need expertise in pharmacy.”
Robert Dingwall
Robert Dingwall is director of the University of Nottingham’s
Institute for Science and Society. He has carried out a range of
research projects on different professions, work and organisations
in health, legal services and science, including studies of innovation
in pharmaceutical services for people with mental health problems
and of the work of solo pharmacists.
He has also been an adviser
to the Pharmacy Practice Research Trust and to the Pharmacy Practice
Research Enterprise Scheme.
Dame Jill Macleod Clark
Dame Jill Macleod Clark is deputy dean of the Faculty of Medicine,
Health and Biological Sciences, University of Southampton. She
is a nurse whose professional and academic interests focus around
the development of clinical and professional roles, interprofessional
education, health promotion and education policy.
She also contributes
to national initiatives and working parties related to clinical
academic careers and workforce modernisation. She chaired the Council
of Deans from 2002–07.
Peter Owen
Peter Owen, secretary general of the Institute of Chartered Accountants,
spent most of his career in the civil service. His positions included
deputy secretary for housing and construction industry policy,
head of the Cabinet Office Economic and Domestic Policy Secretariat,
and Director General for Schools.
He played a leading part in discussions
with the Government over the relationship between the institute
and the Financial Reporting Council when it acquired its new role
as the accountants’ regulator.
CLARIFICATION:
Clarke Inquiry panel (17 November 2007)
Information provided by the Clarke Inquiry about panel member Peter Owen was
incorrect. Mr Owen ceased to be secretary general of the Institute of Chartered
Accountants in 2003
|
|
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal