Fit to practise? Processes for dealing with misconduct among pharmacists in Australia, Canada, the UK and US

© 2018 Elsevier Inc.In many countries with legal systems based on English common law, pharmacy regulators have a responsibility to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of patients. Where there is a potential risk to patient safety, or where the public's confidence in pharmacy could be adversely affected by the actions of a pharmacist, these regulators have a statutory duty to investigate concerns. The legal provisions underpinning each jurisdiction's disciplinary processes depict distinctive outlooks from the different authorities, as each works towards the same goal. Legal statues, regulations, rules, and guidance affecting the disciplinary process in Great Britain, Australia, New York and New Brunswick were collated, and the processes they describe were attached to a common process flow diagram for step-by-step evaluation of their respective legal provisions. The initial stages of the respective investigation process are broadly similar in all the jurisdictions examined; however, each process has subtle differences that afford some level of advantage or disadvantage over its comparators. Factors including: how matters of discipline are framed; the existence of a separate process for minor and uncontested violations; the ability to effect an interim suspension of a practitioner's license; threshold criteria for escalation of complaints; the membership of disciplinary panels; and the perceived independence of these panels all philosophically affect the public safety remit of each regulator. This work constitutes the first comparison of international regulatory frameworks for the profession of pharmacy. Of the four jurisdictions examined, Great Britain most clearly acts in the interest of the public and the profession – rather than the respondent pharmacist – at every step of its process.Peer reviewe

Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

Background: Considerable resources are spent on research to establish what works to improve the nation’s health. If the findings from this research are used, better health outcomes can follow, but we know that these findings are not always used. In public health, evidence of what works may not ‘fit’ everywhere, making it difficult to know what to do locally. Research suggests that evidence use is a social and dynamic process, not a simple application of research findings. It is unclear whether it is easier to get evidence used via a legal contracting process or within unified organisational arrangements with shared responsibilities. Objective: To work in cocreation with research participants to investigate how research is utilised and knowledge mobilised in the commissioning and planning of public health services to reduce alcohol-related harms. Design, setting and participants: Two in-depth, largely qualitative, cross-comparison case studies were undertaken to compare real-time research utilisation in commissioning across a purchaser–provider split (England) and in joint planning under unified organisational arrangements (Scotland) to reduce alcohol-related harms. Using an overarching realist approach and working in cocreation, case study partners (stakeholders in the process) picked the topic and helped to interpret the findings. In Scotland, the topic picked was licensing; in England, it was reducing maternal alcohol consumption. Methods: Sixty-nine interviews, two focus groups, 14 observations of decision-making meetings, two local feedback workshops (n = 23 and n = 15) and one national workshop (n = 10) were undertaken. A questionnaire (n = 73) using a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale was issued to test the transferability of the 10 main findings. Given the small numbers, care must be taken in interpreting the findings. Findings: Not all practitioners have the time, skills or interest to work in cocreation, but when there was collaboration, much was learned. Evidence included professional and tacit knowledge, and anecdotes, as well as findings from rigorous research designs. It was difficult to identify evidence in use and decisions were sometimes progressed in informal ways and in places we did not get to see. There are few formal evidence entry points. Evidence (prevalence and trends in public health issues) enters the process and is embedded in strategic documents to set priorities, but local data were collected in both sites to provide actionable messages (sometimes replicating the evidence base). Conclusions: Two mid-range theories explain the findings. If evidence has saliency (relates to ‘here and now’ as opposed to ‘there and then’) and immediacy (short, presented verbally or visually and with emotional appeal) it is more likely to be used in both settings. A second mid-range theory explains how differing tensions pull and compete as feasible and acceptable local solutions are pursued across stakeholders. Answering what works depends on answering for whom and where simultaneously to find workable (if temporary) ‘blends’. Gaining this agreement across stakeholders appeared more difficult across the purchaser–provider split, because opportunities to interact were curtailed; however, more research is needed. Funding: This study was funded by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research

Trustee exemption clauses A consultation paper

Also available via the InternetSIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:3423. 7764(no 171) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

The forfeiture rule and the law of succession A consultation paper

Also available via the InternetSIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:3423. 7764(no 172) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Land, valuation and housing tribunals A consultation paper

Also available via the InternetAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:3423. 7764(no 170) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Report of the Royal commission appointed to inquire into sentences passed under martial law

Richard Everard, baron Alverstone, Sir John Charles Bigham, Sir John Charles Ardagh, commissionersAt head of title: South Africa, 1902Mode of access: Internet

The Law reports of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting.

Editors: 1891-1894, A.P. Stone; 1895-1900, Frederick Pollock.Each year issued in 2 v.Mode of access: Internet.Continued in 1901 by: Law reports of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting. King's Bench Division and on appeal therefrom in the Court of Appeal, decisions on Crown cases reserved, and decisions of the Railway and Canal Commission