The council of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists has been rebuked for failing to report to members a motion of no confidence in the head office administration provided by its parent union, MSF.
|  Heather Leake (Sussex) makes a point |
Supporting Mr Timson, Mr W. T. BROOKES (Liverpool) said that guild members should have been told there was a problem and that it was being dealt with.
Two further motions critical of the guild's communications record were also accepted by the meeting.
One, proposed by Mr Brookes, demanded urgent action to rectify a "dearth of publicity" about the guild in the pharmacy press and the failure of the guild council to keep members informed in guild matters.
"What has the council done to raise the profile of services provided by guild members to the public and within the National Health Service," Mr BROOKES asked. The lack of information provided to ordinary guild members was also a concern. Did the guild council not tell the press what it was doing or did the press choose not to report anything? The most recent council meeting reported in Guild News had been held in June, 1998. This could explain why attendance at GDMs was half what it was 10 years ago. People would attend if they knew that important issues were at stake.
In an amended motion, the guild's London group successfully called for a new and effective public relations structure.
The guild council was also criticised for changing the process for submitting motions to the GDM in a way not allowed under guild rules. The council had said that it would accept motions from individual members of "inactive" groups. Normally, motions have to be accepted by groups before submission to a GDM.
For the Liverpool and East Midlands groups, Mr BROOKES said that this entailed a rule change that had to be made at an annual general meeting.
Supporting, Mr TIMSON asked what constituted an inactive group. How long did it have to be since the last meeting? How few members? What would happen if an individual from an inactive group proposed a motion and then someone arranged a group meeting. It was a well-meaning, but ill-thought out proposal.
Mrs MARGARET PRYCE (Surrey) said that individuals in inactive groups who wanted guild involvement should revitalise their groups.
After the motion was accepted, Mr ANTHONY OXLEY (chairman of the guild's organisation, terms and conditions committee) said that a working party would prepare a proposal for the next guild AGM. Members would be consulted as he would not bring an unacceptable proposal to the AGM.
Two motions related to pharmacy techncian registration were accepted.
The first, proposed by Mr KEITH FARRAR (Manchester), called on the guild council to urge the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to introduce technician registration.
Mr Farrar said that technicians wanted accreditation and registration to recognise their increasing role in pharmaceutical care. Registration would enhance their recognition by other health professionals and would facilitate the handling of Controlled Drugs because registered technicians would be allowed to hold CD cabinet keys. Registration by another body could pose a competitive threat to pharmacy. The Royal College of Nursing had already responded positively to the technicians.
Mrs PRYCE said that pharmacy should be unified. The Society was the obvious registering body for technicians.
The second motion, successfully proposed on behalf of the North Wales group, called on the guild council to seek support for technician registration from its parent MSF union.
Two motions, both successful, called for advice in relation to current developments.
The first, proposed by Miss CHRISTINA LOWE (South Wales) called for advice on the liability of pharmacists in respect of technician checking of dispensed prescriptions. Such schemes were become more common and there was confusion over the implications. Legal advice was unhelpful as different parts of the NHS had received conflicting advice. She believed that the Medicines Act 1968 allowed hospitals to make whatever arrangements they wished in respect of medicines, so long as a medical practitioner was involved at some stage.
Mr FARRAR said that technician checking was safer than checking by pharmacists, because clinical issues distracted pharmacists from accuracy checks. The fact that trusts had received conflicting advice meant that the guild should not spend its own money on advice.
The second successful motion, from Northern Ireland, called for advice on the requirements for indemnity insurance if pharmacists took on a prescribing role.
A related successful motion, also from Northern Ireland, called for the training needs of pharmacists who might become dependent or independent prescribers to be investigated and for an appropriate registering body to be identified.
Ms COLETTE McBRIDE said that pharmacy undergraduate courses provided good clinical training but did not cover prescribing.
Mr FARRAR said that if the guild did not identify the registration body it could find itself producing advice in conflict with another organisation.
For the London group, Mr DAVID WEBBER successfully proposed a general investigation of issues related to production, quality control and radiopharmacy services. He said that basic grade training in radiopharmacy used to be the norm. Now there was none and training in production and QC was curtailed. Recruitment of radiopharmacists was virtually impossible. Radiopharmaceuticals were increasingly contracted out, supervised by physicists and dispensed by nuclear medicine technologists.
The Yorkshire group successfully called on the guild council to commission training for primary care group pharmacists.
Mr JOHN DADE, proposing, said that 300 pharmacists were working for PCGs. They needed training in the skills of negotiation and influence.
The meeting also called on the guild council to provide unified and active leadership for pharmacy in the NHS.
Proposing, Mr Farrar said that there were many interest groups in hospital pharmacy, one of which, the psychiatric pharmacists' group, had proposed a special qualification for the specialty. It was time for one group to set the agenda. Hospital pharmacy was a small group with many disparate voices. Strong leadership was needed.
Finally, the meeting considered, and rejected, an emergency motion from the East Midlands group that accused the guild council of covertly appointing an editor for a new guild journal.
Explaining what had happened, the guild president (Mr PETER COOKE) said that a freelance editor had been recruited by the publisher, with guild input, to launch the magazine. If the magazine became viable, a permanent editor would be recruited by an open process.
Other topics discussed:
Rationing and funding in the NHS
New journal and website
Vaccine storage and prescription legibility
Testing competence to practise