Council agrees that certain cases need not be referred to the Society’s Investigating Committee
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council has decided that certain
cases, including single
one-off dispensing errors (see PJ, 7 June 2008,
p677), need not be referred to the Investigating Committee providing
none of
the threshold criteria for referral is met.
At the June Council
meeting, the Council considered a series of recommendation
from the Law and Ethics Committee, which had been compiled after the
public consultation on the matter (see PJ, 9 February 2008,
centre section) that had ended in April 2008.
(PDF 380K)
Among the recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Council,
were:
• That cases involving single one-off dispensing errors should not be
referred to the Investigating Committee (subject to threshold criteria).
• That the scope of a single one-off dispensing error should include
errors made during the dispensing process, from receipt of prescription
through to supply of the dispensed medicine to the patient. The scope
of dispensing error should not include near misses, which are medication
errors that never reach the patient/representative.
• That cases against registrants which are not referred should be disposed
of by way of a letter sent to the individual by the office as a result
of the findings of the inspector’s investigations, where the individual
admits the allegations made and accepts the advice provided. The letters
should make it clear to registrants that they can seek legal advice prior
to responding to the allegations against them. Records should be maintained
for five years as part of the registrant’s fitness-to-practise
history to show that the individual has admitted to the allegations made
and accepted the advice provided.
• That a further paper should be considered by the Law and Ethics Committee
to discuss the use of records and fitness-to-practise history. The paper
should take into account any advice, guidance from the Council for Healthcare
Regulatory Excellence.
• That categories of cases that are suitable for non-referral to the
Investigating Committee be extended (subject to threshold criteria).
• That the threshold criteria should apply to cases involving registered
pharmacy technicians (including those voluntarily registered).
JOHN JOLLEY welcomed the recommendations but wondered what the effect
would be on the workload of the statutory committees by imposing those
criteria, because quite clearly there will be a reduction in caseload.
JACKIE GILTROW, said that up to, say, 200 cases could fall outside the
Investigating Committee’s remit. In terms of the effect on the
Disciplinary Committee, there would be no effect, because these were
the less serious cases. There would be no reduction in workload for the
disciplinary and health committees.
There would be a slight reduction
for the Investigating Committee, as it would be
looking at fewer non-serious cases, but it would still will be looking
at all the serious cases.
ALAN KERSHAW thought it would be helpful if the Investigating Committee
could see an aggregated report from time to time on cases dealt with
in this way, with trends identified.
Mrs GILTROW answered that a quarterly report was currently provided to
the Investigating Committee, and she expected to report quarterly, too,
through the Law and Ethics Committee.
DOUGLAS SIMPSON, reminded the Council that he used to edit The Pharmaceutical
Journal and that he had been alarmed at the fact that he could be subject
to two years’ imprisonment for breaching advertising regulations
[cases thought to be suitable for non-referral to the Investigating Committee].
He said that, technically you could end up with a conviction under some
of these regulations. What would happen if a conviction resulted?
Mrs GILTROW said it would depend on whether a prison sentence had been
imposed. Within the fitness-to-practise rules there were routes that
convictions had to take, so they would be dealt with.
GERALD ALEXANDER wondered how records would be kept. He thought it would
be a good idea if affected registrants could see the form in which their
records were kept.
Mrs GILTROW explained that there were standard templates already to handle
single one off dispensing errors. They would be revised subject to the
Council’s recommendations. The Society sought to ensure that registrants
were provided with a standard format for allegations against them and
a standard format for advice given to them.
STEPHEN ACRES strongly supported the extension of the initiative to pharmacy
technicians. He added: “If we could move the mandatory registration
of technicians forward so it covers all pharmacy technicians that would
be a significant step forward.” |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal