The Pharmacists’ Defence Association says the General Pharmaceutical Council’s proposed framework for revalidation more accurately describes continuing professional development, as it does not include any formal appraisal by a senior pharmacist of a registrant’s practice, will not detect impaired performance at an early stage and is not sufficiently rigorous.
“The proposed framework does not constitute revalidation,” says the PDA. “The GPhC should re-establish the continuing fitness to practise advisory group with a view to considering whether a revalidation framework should be introduced, the practical aspects of what would be required, proportionality and the evidence for improvements in the safety or quality of patient care it would bring.”
Other recommendations from the PDA in response to the GPhC’s revalidation consultation include:
The union wants the GPhC to develop a separate revalidation framework for chief pharmacists, superintendent pharmacists and pharmacy owners “to assess whether or not they are (and remain) fit and proper persons to hold their positions of responsibility”. It should also impose a mandatory requirement on employers to provide protected time for registrants to complete the necessary activities.
The regulator should explain how any cost savings arising from the proposed framework will be invested in improving the protection it provides the public, the PDA adds.
The PDA’s full response can be seen here.
Originally Published by Pharmacy Magazine