The Clarke Enquiry

[Scamp]

Not sure if everyone is aware of this consultation about what should happen regarding a 'representative body' for Pharmacy once the GPhC takes on the role of regulation. It is mentioned in this week's PJ.

The Clarke Inquiry

I haven't read the docs yet or submitted my comments but hopefully everyone who has an opinion will share it!

[lm248]

Re: The Clarke Enquiry

We've covered the bare bones of the Clarke Enquiry at Uni but I don't entirely understand it - or rather, I understand the concept of dividing the Royal Society into a regulatory and a professional body, but I can't quite formulate opinions on the pros and cons of this. I'm pretty sure it's something that'll come up in pre-reg interviews but I can't seem to get a handle on it - what does everyone else think about it? Do you think it's a good or bad idea?

[N.T]

Re: The Clarke Enquiry

Ah yes, I forgot this was published yesterday. I'm too tired to read it now (where's the executive summary?!?)

[pharout]

Re: The Clarke Enquiry

Not sure if everyone is aware of this consultation about what should happen regarding a 'representative body' for Pharmacy once the GPhC takes on the role of regulation. It is mentioned in this week's PJ.

The Clarke Inquiry

I haven't read the docs yet or submitted my comments but hopefully everyone who has an opinion will share it!

Any idea as to when this transition to the GPhC is supposed to take place? I thought I read somewhere early 2010?

[Pharmanaut]

Re: The Clarke Enquiry

Any idea as to when this transition to the GPhC is supposed to take place? I thought I read somewhere early 2010?

Nostradamus-pharmanaut predicts that the profession will pay for GPhC to be set up. They will then rule with a rod of iron and the former RPSGB will back them up all the way whatever they decide.

[johnep]

Re: The Clarke Enquiry

I have just filled in a questionnaire regarding my views on what the new body should provide and how much would I pay.
johnep

[the old merlin]

Re: The Clarke Enquiry

Nostradamus-pharmanaut predicts that the profession will pay for GPhC to be set up. They will then rule with a rod of iron and the former RPSGB will back them up all the way whatever they decide.

I do like to see a sense of optimism creeping into postings! You have the chance to vote in the Society's election at the moment; make sure you vote for someone who will do their damndest to stop either happening.

People who say they never vote have only themselves to blame when their representatives don't represent them.

[Pharmanaut]

Re: The Clarke Enquiry

I do like to see a sense of optimism creeping into postings! You have the chance to vote in the Society's election at the moment; make sure you vote for someone who will do their damndest to stop either happening.

People who say they never vote have only themselves to blame when their representatives don't represent them.

Have always voted in society elections since becoming a MPS and latterly a 'registrant'. Only a couple of candidates have ever expressed the views from the sharp end. Many have promised this, but have rapidly become part of the "establishment" once they get into the big tent.

[Tony Schofield]

Re: The Clarke Enquiry

The new professional body will not rule with a rod of iron as it will be hoping to attract fee paying members. The regulatory body probably will be tougher than the RPSGB as the Government will set it up as a mandatory body.

My main worry is that, as one who welcomes a professional leadrship body is that insufficient members will be attracted and it will be unviable.

[Jeff]

Re: The Clarke Enquiry

People who say they never vote have only themselves to blame when their representatives don't represent them.

I usually cast the odd vote - but deep down I don't believe that the MOC's - whoever they are and however well intentioned are capable of representing within the constraints of the RPSGB.

This time I'll vote for those I believe deserve the chance to try or try again - I won't blame "them" for failing. I expect failure and I'd be happy for them to prove me wrong.

Can the RPSGB take on the failings of the multiples without bringing the profession into disrepute? I don't think it's possible.

Can the RPSGB argue that the single supplier model used by multiple community pharmacy is not in the patients best interest?

Can the RPSGB argue that staffing levels are too often unsafe?

I don't think it's possible for the RPSGB to do so whoever is elected.

Jeff