Policy responses and statements

Name of organisation:

The Clarke Inquiry

Name of policy document:

An Independent Inquiry into a Professional Body for Pharmacy

Deadline for response:

31 January 2008

Background: Following the programme of reform set out in the government's review of healthcare professional regulation in the 21 February 2007 White Paper; Trust, assurance and safety: the regulation of health professionals, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) Council, in June 2007, undertook to commission an Independent Inquiry into the possible options for a new professional leadership body for pharmacy.

The Inquiry has been set up to allow the profession the widest possible debate around the issues relating to a future professional body for pharmacy. Based on that consultation, the Inquiry will make recommendations to the RPSGB for how that can be achieved.

A draft consultation document has been drawn up and the Inquiry has been holding a series of public evidence meetings with the profession, nationally, throughout November, December and January. In addition to these public meetings, formal evidence sessions will take place in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff during November, December and January. The final report will be presented to the RPSGB in mid-March in time for their Council meeting in April 2008.

The Inquiry into the principles, functions and structure of a future professional body for pharmacy is being undertaken by an independent chairman, Nigel Clarke.

COMMENTS ON
THE ROYAL PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN
THE CLARKE INQUIRY: AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO A PROFESSIONAL BODY FOR PHARMACY

The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is pleased to respond to the Clarke Inquiry on its Independent Inquiry into a Professional Body for Pharmacy.

In February 2007, the Government published the White Paper “Trust, Assurance and Safety - the Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century”.  In this White Paper, the Government announced its intention to establish a new regulatory body for the regulation of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, and for the registration of pharmacy premises and inspection of pharmacies.  The proposed new regulatory body, the General Pharmaceutical Council, will take over the existing role of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB), which currently combines regulation with professional leadership.  The RPSGB has commissioned an Independent Inquiry, the Clarke Inquiry, into the possible options for a new professional leadership body for pharmacy.  The Inquiry seeks to establish views on the best way for the pharmacy profession to be led when the new regulatory body, the General Pharmaceutical Council, is created.

We have reviewed the consultation document and the Department of Health’s report (the Carter Report), and wish to make the following comments; however,  we have not commented in detail on all  44 questions in the very wide-ranging  consultation document,  since we feel it is primarily for the pharmacy profession to establish the detail of the professional structure that they want.

We agree there is a need to separate regulation and licensing of pharmacists (in a system parallel to the GMC for doctors) from the professional leadership of education and professional direction (in medicine provided by the Royal Colleges and others) and the activities such as trade union functions, financial advice and negotiations with the government (for medicine provided by the British Medical Association).

The RPSGB is already in existence and it would be a pragmatic approach to adapt its current structures to devolve into the new professional body, proposed to be a newly established Royal College of Pharmacy, although we are not sure that the term “Royal College” is appropriate or necessary.

The new professional body would:

• have a role in the development of  professional standards
• contribute to the competencies and standards of undergraduate education
• be involved in the development of pharmacy curricula and teachers
• be a stakeholder in the licensing of pharmacists
• play a role in establishing pre-registration training on a national basis
• play a role in revalidation of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians
• be both a provider and accreditor of continuing professional development.

We wish to emphasise that it would not be appropriate for the new national professional body to undertake some of the functions mentioned in the consultation document, such as financial advice or personal counselling, which are trade union functions.

Full membership of the new professional body should be given to individuals on the register of pharmacists.  Associate membership could be available for those who are qualified and can bring specific knowledge and expertise in the field of pharmacy, whether in development, production, regulation, distribution or management.  A fellowship could be available for those nominated for their distinction in pharmacy practice or the pharmaceutical sciences.

It is also proposed that a new Royal College of Pharmacy would create an Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences, which would be a professional academic organisation linking academia and industry.  A further Academy of Pharmaceutical Practice is proposed, to champion and support advanced specialist pharmacy practitioners, though little detail of how to achieve this vision is provided.

Most of the detailed questions of the consultation document are for pharmacists themselves to decide, although we do wish to comment that little attention is given to how future bodies will be financed by the pharmacy profession.  Once the obligatory cost of regulation is dealt with, the profession will need to finance the additional activities without the benefit of a professional postgraduate exam which helps to finance current Royal Colleges.  This is an issue entirely for pharmacy, but detailed market research into how much members would be prepared to contribute would help to establish how much support there is for future proposals.

Overall, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh supports this initiative, which creates a clear opportunity for the pharmacy profession to maintain and improve future standards.  It is essential that the new body represents all sectors of the pharmacy profession (in hospitals, the community, industry and academia) and provides a significant and unified voice for the profession as well as providing support for pharmacists in their day-to-day work of improving the health and well being of patients.  This initiative may provide important opportunities for future improved collaboration between the medical and pharmacy professions, for example, by having some medical representation on the General Pharmaceutical Council. 

Copies of this response are available from:

Lesley Lockhart,
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh,
9 Queen Street,
Edinburgh,
EH2 1JQ.

Tel: 0131 225 7324 ext 608
Fax: 0131 220 3939

[4 February 2008]