Hi people, would love a bit of input from everyone :)

[Fazza87]

Hello, i am in my final year of programme at university and have been given a research statement. It is as follows:

The inception of the GPHC in 2010 is the most far reaching change in the profession since the foundation of the RPSGB. Discuss this.

I can talk about the formation of the council and the reasons and benefits behind this and why it is a major change. However i am finding it difficult to argue the other aspect which is that the split is no big deal and will not bring change. Any input from either side of the board will be very much appreciated.

Thankyou (if this is in the wrong section then im sorry!)

[DavidS]

(if this is in the wrong section then im sorry!)

I've no idea if this is in the wrong section or not! No doubt it will be moved if someone has a view.

I'm rather pleased that you are finding it difficult to argue that it is really "no big deal."

In my recollection, it went something like this:
1. Many years ago, the society was founded as a voice for pharmacists, and to bring some order to their education.
2. Many years after that, the government asked the society to regulate the profession, and wrote the legislation to back this up.
3. Relatively recently, warnings about a chap called Harold Shipman were ignored by the independent regulator of the medical profession, and the home office. They were wrong to do so.
4. The government intimated that they would like independent regulators to regulate all the professions. Their reasoning was that this would give the public more confidence. Please reread 3 and 4 until you make some sense of it. Then you can explain it to me.
5. Our society's response to this was to ramp up the regulation of the profession to show just what it could do. No misdemenour, however minor, was overlooked, it seemed, and no discrimination was shown. Many trees were killed to supply the paperwork, and quite a number of pharmacists had a hell of a time. Unsurprisingly, many members of the profession felt that regulation had taken precedence over supporting the profession in doing their jobs. It also attempted to alter the charter to further weaken the support role that it had previously regarded as an important function.
6. The society council was replaced by supporters of the society's original aims, which included supporting members of the profession.
7. The government didn't like this. I think that they were trying to engineer the transformation of the society INTO an independent regulator, and they failed. So, they changed the rules.
8. This landed the society in rather a pickle: it has been faced with a transformation from pettifogging dictatorship with guaranteed membership, to touchy-feely please join us as we are so nice and supportive, in a couple of years.
9. In the meantime, the government started setting up the GPhC. It looks like it might really be independent, which is worrying the multiples a bit, I can tell you.
10. Who knows ..............

It seems like a bit change to me!

[Fazza87]

Thankyou for your post. So was the shipman negligence a catalyst to the idea of independent regulators regulating all the professions with vigilance ?

I also recall something to do with Lord Carter of Coles and Donaldson/Foster, were they influential in pushing for the white paper?

Do you think the change will really effect patients directly and do you think pharmacists give a hoot if they are regulated by the rpsgb or gphc?

Has it not worked out considerably up until now where the society has been both regulator and representative? So many questions

Can you think of anything that would suggest that it may not make a difference, i suppose its clutching at straws. I suppose you could say that in the shipman case, failure was due to the fact that an independent regulator like you say overlooked warning signs,who is to say that an independent regulator may not overlook something in the pharmacy profession. The society has more experience in regulating and with the GPHC being a government objective and a new setup, it may not be an easy ride at the start and it doesn't look like the society are going to hang around to give a hand either! However this what has been said regarding this so it looks like they will have to:

A white paper in 2007 called for a new independent regulatory body to provide greater transparency and accountability to the public.

However, Mr Nicholls said the regulator would still have some reliance on the Society’s resources in the short term.

“We use some of the RPS corporate services. We’re not going to have our own HR or finances – we’re not big enough.”

The decision on whether to continue arrangements with the Society would be made independently, Mr Nicholls added. The GPhC team would comprise around 120 members, two-thirds of whom would be from the RPSGB’s existing regulatory team, Mr Nicholls said.

Also there was a post in clarke inquiry on the forum and it said something like that theyl be fairly lenient as they want members so they get the fees, otherwise they may become in viable. How is this so? will the government not cough up for this, and would it not be compulsory to pay fee to the regulator?

[johnep]

History of regulation has to been to stamp hard on the small boys and let the big fish do as they please. Eg the banks.
We could do with less govnmt. Bring back Henry VIII!.
johnep

[TigerSwift]

Hmmmmmm, seems someone goes to LJMU and wants us to help them answer their coursework question which is to be answered under exam conditions next Friday.

[Fazza87]

Rest assured i wont be taking the forum in with me! Just trying to understand a few concepts im struggling with.

[TigerSwift]

Have a look at the Pharmacy PLB website to see what they will be offering to their members. That may help you make some other arguments.

[DavidS]

Thankyou for your post. So was the shipman negligence a catalyst to the idea of independent regulators regulating all the professions with vigilance ?

yes, I think thanks to Dame Janet.

Do you think the change will really effect patients directly and do you think pharmacists give a hoot if they are regulated by the rpsgb or gphc?

yes; not yet. Independent regulators are more likely to cut through the crap of badly written legislation. Pharmacists can hardly have been worse served than by the way the RPSGB has behaved in recent years.

Has it not worked out considerably up until now where the society has been both regulator and representative?

up til 10 years ago, great. Then the compensation culture began to set in and I think things started going pear-shaped. But patients were certainly looked after. Pharmacists not so.

I suppose you could say that in the shipman case, failure was due to the fact that an independent regulator like you say overlooked warning signs,who is to say that an independent regulator may not overlook something in the pharmacy profession. The society has more experience in regulating and with the GPHC being a government objective and a new setup, it may not be an easy ride at the start and it doesn't look like the society are going to hang around to give a hand either!

all excellent points, actually.