|
Anthony Oxley is president of the Guild of Healthcare
Pharmacists and chair of the National Professional Committee |
The draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2006, made under Section 60 of the Health Act 1999 is, by any definition, an important piece of legislation for all practitioners working within the pharmacy field. As such, the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists' council organised a meeting to discuss our response to the Department of Health's consultation.
During this debate we tried wherever possible to follow certain principles,
the first of which is that all registered professionals should be regulated
by a body that embodies the principles set out in the Kennedy report.
For pharmacists, we believe that this should continue to be the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society.
However, with respect to the issue of separating regulation from representation,
we remain unconvinced that there are strong public safety reasons for
insisting that these two functions must be connected through one body.
Any employer seeking to take on a pharmacist should check the current
Register and, if the person has been removed from it, or has never been
on it, they will not be employed by any competent employer, whether or
not the person is a member of a representative body. They will also be
committing an offence if they pass themselves off as a pharmacist.
At the present time, the Society appears to be in the best position to
represent the profession of pharmacy, although many pharmacists, including
those in the managed sector, may have their doubts about how well this
duty is currently being carried out for them. However, regardless of
current performance, the Society may not be the best option for managed
sector representation in perpetuity. Therefore, to require this link
to be set out in any legislation is inappropriate.
For pharmacy technicians (whom we do not represent) our fundamental principle
that they should be regulated by a Kennedy-compliant regulator remains
valid. Whether or not this is the Society is not for us to say, although
clearly there would be advantages for employers if all registered technicians
were on the same Register. With the Scottish situation this may not be
possible, but whatever arrangements are put in place must allow for free
movement of technicians across national boundaries within the UK.
We also feel strongly about issues surrounding professional indemnity
arrangements and the registering body. The only interest of such a body
should be whether or not there are adequate arrangements in place to
recompense patients should something go wrong. For staff working within
the NHS this is clearly covered by vicarious liability and would also
be covered by pharmacists working for other organisations where that
organisation has its own indemnity arrangements. Whether or not a pharmacist
has financial support to be represented in various hearings looking at
allegations of misconduct is not for the registrar to specify but it
is for the individual pharmacist to determine. Thus, the Guild’s
council is adamant that all references to such areas in the draft Order
should stipulate “professional indemnity arrangements” and
not “insurance”. Once clear in the Order, we hope that the
distinction will be picked up by the pharmacy press.
During our debate we did not generate much clarity on why people would
wish to be on the non-practising Register. It must be clear to registrants
what the advantages and disadvantages are to entry on specific sections
of the register and how to go about moving from one section to another.
We would also want to see clear examples of what constitutes non-practising
status for those more borderline cases, for example, where a pharmacist
continues to work in a hospital environment but outside of the pharmacy
structure but may come across issues relating to medicines in their new
role.
Fitness to practise
In general we support the principle that the regulator should be able
to share with others, including employers, concerns regarding the registrant’s
fitness to practise when it is in the public interest to do so. We do,
however, raise two caveats to this. First of all (and another principle
which runs throughout our response), there should be clear criteria to
allow these judgments to be made. Equity is paramount in these situations
and we cannot allow pharmacists with the same fundamental issue to be
treated differently. Secondly, any communication with outside bodies
before the completion of the fitness-to-practise process must be couched
in terms of innocent until proven guilty. We do not want a rash of contacts
with employers leading to suspensions when subsequently the case is dismissed.
Any professional person is dependent on preserving a high professional
reputation, and this should not be put at risk unless essential in the
public interest.
Many pharmacists in the managed sector have been concerned with the steep
rises in registration fees over the past few years. Overlying our whole
response is the consideration that the changes proposed in the regulatory
framework must not be allowed to become the justification for another
rise in fees and that the changes should be introduced on a cost-neutral
basis to registrants. There is an argument that, even if representation
and registration are both carried out by the same body, the fee structure
should clearly indicate what proportion is allocated to each function.
We also believe strongly that, throughout all the proposed fitness-to-practise
machinery, committees are required to seek advice and input from appropriate
people. For example, any managed sector pharmacist should expect to see
a managed sector pharmacist on the committee considering a case. This
principle should also apply to pharmacists from Wales and Scotland as
health care systems diverge as devolution progresses.
Conclusion
We have submitted our response to the Department of Health and it is
now available to members on our website. We look forward to seeing our
suggestions in the finalised Order. In the meantime, any members who
would like to feed into our views in these areas can do so via the discussion
forum on the website. |
Hospital Pharmacist