CONSULTATION


of a UK-wide regulator by far outweigh this risk.


‘Pharmacists are the only healthcare profession in the UK not to have a UK-wide regulator. In our scrutiny of the seven UK-wide regulators we oversee, we have yet to identify any shortcomings in their ability to operate across jurisdictions, and in Northern Ireland in particular. The GPhC already operates across three of the four UK-countries, and we have no reason to believe that extending its remit to NI would have any adverse impact on its ability to effectively protect the public – particularly if the mitigation measures suggested in the consultation document (appointing an NI Director and Council Member at the GPhC) were implemented.’


The PSA also pointed out the benefits that this move to the GPhC would bring to NI pharmacists, including that of freedom of movement.


‘It is critical for healthcare economies to make the best use of a mobile workforce, to ensure that communities across the UK have access to the healthcare they need. Having one regulator for all UK- registered pharmacists would allow freer movement of professionals around the UK. It would also bring consistency of professional standards


and fitness to practise processes, and would be likely to make decisions about registration, removal, and other sanctions fairer and more equitable. This consistency would provide greater clarity for the public, and help to increase public confidence in the regulator and the profession.’


From PiF’s discussions with both pharmacists and pharmacy bodies, the general consensus seems to be there are major concerns about the issue in general – even concerning the quality of the consultation document itself – with some suggesting that it had been ‘rushed through’.


While most pharmacists we spoke to felt that regulation needed to be carried out on a local basis, many were certainly of the view that a new model is needed on a devolved basis, they were quick to point out that the consultation didn’t actually offer up any ideas as to what this model should look like.


While we await the outcome of this consultation, PiF asked several of the local professional bodies how they felt about both the consultation document and for their views on the outcome that they would ideally like to see.•


PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF NORTHERN IRELAND


(selection of points taken from official response) While the PSNI wished to place on record ‘that it supports the policy direction set out around the modernisation of pharmacy regulation in NI. For many years it has sought to further modernise its legislative base and strengthen its primary objectives around the protection of the public. It would, however, wish to place on record a number of concerns around errors and omissions in the consultation document. The Council is of the view that the nature of these errors and omissions is such that the analysis of responses may be difficult to uphold.


Firstly, we are concerned that at Paragraph 21 of the consultation, reference is made to the then Minister’s speech, in which it was suggested that further separation may be required, but no mention is given of the unanimous support for the current arrangement and improved legislation. We are extremely disappointed that the Department has not published the transition costs as we have identified costs of up to £344K associated with the establishment of a UK-wide arrangement and £34K associated with the establishment of NI arrangements, information which we would suggest is a critical consideration for respondents.


Paragraph 34 refers to capacity and resilience of a local arrangement. At the request of the Department, information was provided in detail showing how, at a significantly reduced retention fee, such an arrangement could be delivered in NI. We are disappointed that this concern has been raised when the Department has received detailed financial projections, scrutinised before submission by an independent accountant, which does not support this assertion.


COMMUNITY PHARMACY NORTHERN IRELAND (CPNI)


All healthcare professionals and their respective regulators have to operate to ever increasing standards of performance and scrutiny which is good for patients and the public. From a Northern Ireland perspective, the outcome of the recent consultation on the Review of Pharmacy Regulation in Northern Ireland is awaited.


CPNI, like other organisations recognises the need for separation of the regulatory and representative functions of any regulator organisation. In the event that this is the outcome from the consultation, CPNI is of the clear opinion that the public and the profession in Northern Ireland would continue to be best served by retaining the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland in Belfast and focussing its role to regulating the pharmacy profession in Northern Ireland.


Future arrangements for the regulation of all healthcare professions across the UK are currently being reviewed and from the discussion at a recent stakeholder event in Belfast hosted by the Department of Health (London), it is clear that the landscape for the regulation of all healthcare professionals across the UK will continue to evolve in the future.


NATIONAL PHARMACY ASSOCIATION


The NPA believes that the single most important factor in delivering mod- ernised and strengthened statutory regulation is the assurance of public safety. We believe that this consultation does not fully evidence the improve- ments to public safety which would be envisaged by a UK-wide regulatory arrangement.


The Department must ensure that whatever decision is reached that legisla- tive framework and regulation is fit for purpose in terms of protecting the public as well as enabling innovative and new practice models.


ULSTER CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION


Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland is currently tasked with the dual role of regulating pharmacists and providing professional leadership. Whilst it is accepted that current thinking does not support a dual role, the decision may be made to separate out these two functions regardless of how well PSNI may have performed its regulatory duties in recent years.


However, a UK-wide consultation on healthcare regulation is about to begin. There is pressure to reduce the UK’s 9 healthcare regulators to 5 which puts the NI review into a wider context.


However, UCA is most concerned with the pressing need to support the professional leadership of pharmacy and pharmacists in Northern Ireland. Whilst the Society has delegated the responsibility for professional leadership to the Pharmacy Forum, many would argue that this has not been given sufficient focus by the Society in relation to its regulatory function.


How professional leadership will be effected by a change to the regulatory system operating in Northern Ireland, or indeed, should the status quo remain, is not addressed in the consultation document.


UCA would welcome clarification from Dept of Health on this issue and we would call on all pharmacists to get more involved in discussions about the future of your profession. How you would like to be represented and supported? How would you like your role as a pharmacist to be developed for the future?


PHARMACY IN FOCUS - 17


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64