Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain - Student Registration Consultation: Response

Part 1: Your details

Name:
Dr Robert Dewdney
Address:
Welsh School of Pharmacy, Redwood Building, Cardiff University, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3NB
Affiliation:
Secretary to Council of University Heads of Pharmacy (CUHOP)
I am completing this response on behalf of the Council of University Heads of Pharmacy (CUHOP)

Part 2: Questions and your responses

Q1 On the basis of the risk presented to patients by MPharm pharmacist students, should they be registered with the Society (or successor regulatory body)?

Possibly. See response to Q4.

Q2 On the basis of the risk presented to patients by pre-registration pharmacist students, should they be registered with the Society (or successor regulatory body)?

Possibly. See response to Q4. Also, the RPSGB or the GPhC needs to recognise that it has a moral duty to see that pharmacy students and potential pharmacy students with declared health or conduct problems can know whether or not they will ultimately be able to register as a pharmacist.

Q3 On the basis of the risk presented to patients by pharmacy technician students, should they be registered with the Society (or successor regulatory body)?

CUHOP has no strong locus in the training of pharmacy technicians and therefore has no comment to make other than that the same broad principles might apply to the two groups of pharmacy students; student pharmacists and student pharmacy technicians.

Q4 What relationship should students have with a future professional body for pharmacy? (Please respond either about all three categories of student or particular categories.)

The present situation is unsatisfactory. RPSGB declines to provide advice to students or schools of pharmacy about the fitness to practise of students with health or conduct problems. This can leave students in the position of potentially wasting their time studying or continuing to study for a qualification that they will not be able to follow through to professional registration. The present situation also has the potential for exposing patients and other vulnerable people to risk. Without student registration or a clear fitness to practise framework operated by the regulator, a school of pharmacy may choose or be required by its parent university to admit to or retain a 'problem' student on a pharmacy programme. Pharmacy programmes increasingly involve contact with patients and the public, in pursuit of the goal of developing students with the capabilities of rounded practitioners. It should be added that risk for patients and the public can come not just from direct contact with students but can also come from student access to personal information or access to medicinal products to be used by patients.

We see benefit in the earliest possible national guidance to encourage or mesh with local arrangements, pending a possible national system to deal with student fitness to practise issues. CUHOP intends to produce such guidance at least for schools of pharmacy by January, 2008.

RPSGB (GPhC) may be inclined with respect to undergraduate students to see responsibility for the exclusion, or restrictions upon, pharmacy students rest with individual university fitness to practise committees. RPSGB (GPhC) needs to be aware that there is uncertainty in the higher education sector as to the legitimate remit and powers of such committees. Students have significant rights in law and under university statutes and the balance of these rights against any move for exclusion on the grounds of potential harm to patients or the public is we believe uncertain and untested in the courts.

The foregoing is not a prelude to a conclusion that RPSGB (GPhC) should move to student registration, although that conclusion is not excluded. A possible way ahead would be for there to be put in place a national fitness to practise committee for pharmacy students, with referrals to the committee by schools of pharmacy, pharmacy employers or preregistration tutors. Schools of pharmacy would be in a strong position - though still not certain - to be able to implement the directions of such a 'detached' national committee within their parent universities. CUHOP would be pleased to work with RPSGB (GPhC) to bring to fruition such a system or indeed whatever proportionate system RPSGB (GPhC) decides to bring forward.

It is interesting to note that the General Optical Council with UK Optometry Schools have introduced student registration, apparently successfully. The model they have is much as we would envisage if pharmacy went for student registration; students being required to register and remain in registration to be able to join and remain on a programme of undergraduate study leading to an Optometry degree and also being required to be in registration to progress through preregistration training.

What to do with this response

Send to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain by 9 November 2007

By email: studentregistrationconsultation@rpsgb.org

By post

John Sloan
Education Projects Policy Manager
Education & Registration
Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
1 Lambeth High Street
London SE1 7JN
United Kingdom