Main points |
|
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has approved a proposal that the Society's Pharmaceutical Sciences Group and the UK Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists should merge to form a new Academy of Pharmaceutical Scientists of Great Britain.
At its meeting in London on November 30 and December 1, the Council heard that the merger proposal had been worked out by the two groups and that, with Council approval, the merger could take place on January 1, 2000.
The TREASURER presented a paper setting out a draft constitution of the new academy for the Council's approval. The academy would have as its objectives: (1) to stimulate development of, and promote the pharmaceutical sciences; (2) to promote interaction and collaboration between the multidisciplinary subjects that constitute the pharmaceutical sciences; and (3) to express the views of pharmaceutical scientists at national and international levels. Membership of the academy would be open to all those with a professional interest in the pharmaceutical sciences and in the furtherance of the academy's objectives.
The academy's activities would include organising scientific meetings, promoting education in the pharmaceutical sciences, developing links with other relevant bodies, promoting information exchange and stimulating research. The academy would also advise the Council, its committees or its working groups on matters relating to the pharmaceutical sciences.
The academy would be managed by a committee whose membership would include nine elected members, co-opted members, the Conference Science Chairman (chosen by the committee), the editor of the academy newsletter (appointed by the committee), the Society's chief scientist and science secretary, and two members of Council, one of whom would be the chairman of the Science Committee.
The academy would also have the role of adjudicating the science papers submitted for the British Pharmaceutical Conference. Adjudication would be by a panel chaired the Conference Science Chairman, with its other members being members of the academy committee and pharmaceutical scientists nominated by the committee.
The Treasurer said that there were minimal financial implications in connection with the merger.
He added that the merger remedied something that had happened tragically some years previously and would bring pharmaceutical scientists back into one group for Britain.
He congratulated the Society's chief scientist (Professor Tony Moffat) on the work he had done to bring about the merger, which was much appreciated.
The PRESIDENT welcomed the merger. She said that it was a major achievement.
Dr HAWKSWORTH agreed and added that all should learn from it.
Dr DAWSON hoped that the minutes would record the Council's immense enthusiasm for the group merger.
Giving an update on clinical governance, the SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that the Society's document setting out a framework for clinical governance in pharmacy (PJ, September 25, p479) had been very well received. Extra copies had been sent out to various health authorities, trusts and pharmacies. The Society would have a stand at the National Institute for Clinical Excellence conference.
The Secretary and Registrar added that it had been agreed to do three things imminently. One was to produce a checklist for community pharmacy; a draft version had already been developed with a group of community pharmacists. Local pharmaceutical committees were urgently wanting to use the information.
The second point was that at least one clinical governance lead pharmacist had been appointed and there might well be others. Information about other appointments would be welcome.
Thirdly, so far as the hospital service was concerned, a suitable addendum to the clinical guidance paper was being drafted. It was based on work done by the Hospital Pharmacists Group.
The Council approved proposals by the practice research division for the development of research protocols in two areas to assist the Society in its deliberations on the community pharmacy skill mix issue (PJ, November 20, p814). The two areas were the structure and organisation of practice in community pharmacy and the process of innovation in community pharmacy. The work would be taken forward by the Community Pharmacy Research Consortium Steering Group.
Introducing the proposals to the Council, Dr SUE AMBLER (head, practice research) said that her division had been asked to advise on the priority of commissioning further research on the amount of pharmacist time that might be freed by the use of trained support staff. Having looked at research that had already been done, it was clear the complexities of the working environment meant that it was methodologically difficult and potentially expensive. The division's advice was that the Council should not pursue that particular recommendation for research.
However, there was research that could usefully be considered under the banner of skill mix and workforce. It was suggested that the two areas of research identified should be remitted to the research consortium to be worked up in greater detail. It would be the preliminary work for potentially large pieces of work with external funding.
The Council was advised that considerable work had already been done by Company Chemists Association members and others, much of which had not been published. The proposal made clear that any additional work would be subject to those holding unpublished research results in this field being willing to share the information.
The Council noted that there was money in the Society's research budget to support the proposal. But before committing the Society to any further expenditure it would be necessary to determine whether it was possible to access the unpublished information and, if so, whether the results were transferable to other community pharmacy settings.
The Council approved a proposal that the Society should work with others to develop a new structure to support primary care pharmacists. The Council also agreed to take a fresh look at the functioning of the Society's Community Pharmacists Group. It decided to make no changes to the Society's Hospital Pharmacists Group.
The Council's decisions arose from its consideration of a document produced by a working group set up to examine the way forward for the membership groups in the primary and secondary care sectors in the light of the report on membership and special interest group that had been considered by the Council at its June meeting (PJ, June 12, p838).
The working group had concluded that pharmacists working in primary care outside community pharmacies represented a new sector that was important to the future development of the profession. However, given current resource limitations and the Council's expressed wish for more flexible structures, the working group considered that the idea of a separate membership group for primary care pharmacists was unrealistic. Nevertheless, there was a need to facilitate those pharmacists meeting to identify how they could work together and work with the Society.
The working group therefore recommended that, subject to the consent of the bodies concerned, a steering group should be set up comprising one representative each from the Council, the Community Pharmacists Group, the Hospital Pharmacists Group, the Primary Care Pharmacists Association, the Primary and Community Care Pharmacy Network, the Prescribing Support Pharmacists Group, the Pharmaceutical Advisers Group and the primary care practice group of the UK Clinical Pharmacy Association.
The steering group would be required, within a period of a year, to hold at least three steering group meetings and to organise at least one public seminar on a topic linked to the development needs of primary care pharmacists and the Society's strategic objectives. It would also be required to produce, for the Council's consideration, a proposal on future group structure(s), including specific proposals on ways of working with the community and pharmacy membership groups and the Society's headquarters generally.
To assist its work, the steering group would be given a grant, would be offered use of meeting rooms at the Society's headquarters and would have access to advice from the Society's staff.
On the Community Pharmacists Group, the Council agreed that an assessment should be made of the group's aims and objectives, whether the existing arrangements met those aims and objectives and, if not, what needed to be done to deliver those aims and objectives. The assessment would be under the chairmanship of an individual whom the officers determined was appropriate.
The assessment would take account of seven assessment criteria identified by the working group for all membership groups. The first four criteria, taken from the core purposes for the Society's groups, as agreed by the Council, were that a group structure should: foster the special interests of pharmacists in the sector, in line with the Society's strategic objectives; provide a channel for representation of pharmacists in the sector; provide a source of specialist expertise; and provide a source of policy ideas. The remaining three criteria, which related to good management practice, were that the group structure should: allow the Society to respond flexibly to the needs of emerging groups within the profession; provide value for money; and complement existing structures, with minimum duplication.
The Council agreed to make a number of amendments to the format of the branch representatives' meeting in 2000 and also to set up a focus group to look at possible further changes for the following year.
The decision arose from consideration of a discussion paper that concluded that the meeting should continue but that changes should be made with the aim of attracting more branch representatives and giving the meeting meaningful outcomes.
One recommended change was that a session should be held at some time during the meeting to update branch representatives on key Council policies and Society strategies. Branches would be asked to suggest topics for the briefing session. Briefing papers would be made available for circulation to those branches that had been unable to send representatives to the meeting. In addition, Council members - particularly chairmen of major Council committees - would be asked to attend the meeting and be able to offer comment at the appropriate stage of the debate if called upon.
Another recommended change was that greater significance should be placed on the responses to branch representatives' resolutions, with a detailed document produced in the autumn following the meeting and an update document prepared before the next year's meeting. The document also recommended reinstating the "sifting" meeting formerly held in March after receipt of the branch motions.
The Council was told that the document was a compromise taking into account various views, including the views of those who wanted to see a dramatic alteration and those who wanted to see the meeting retained almost in its present form. It was suggested that debate on branch motions would still form the major part of the day but that there were also active sessions at which the Council and the office could communicate key issues and get the views and opinions of branch representatives.
Supervision of sales and dispensing The Council accepted a recommendation of the Infringements Committee that the Society should prosecute a pharmacy company and a pharmacist for the alleged sale of a pharmacy medicine and dispensing of prescriptions without the supervision of a pharmacist. It was alleged that the pharmacist, who was a director and sole shareholder of the company, often arrived at the pharmacy after the start of business hours, thus reducing the quality of service available to customers and patients, putting staff into a difficult position and increasing the risk that inappropriate, unlawful sales might take place.
Sales of Valoid The Council agreed to refer to the Statutory Committee the case of a pharmacist who had allegedly sold excessive quantities of Valoid, a medicine known to have potential for abuse. The pharmacist had told the Society that the product had all been sold to a single customer for his own use. However, the total sold over a period of about six months was equivalent to well over 200 tablets a day for a product with a recommended maximum daily dose of three tablets.
Out-of-hours service The Council accepted a recommendation of the Infringements Committee that the Society should initiate legal proceedings in a case involving the alleged operation of an out-of-hours dispensing service from a residential address by a relative of a pharmacist who had unlawfully claimed to be a pharmacist. The pharmacist would be prosecuted for providing a dispensing service from non-registered premises and for allowing dispensing by an unqualified person without a pharmacist's supervision. The relative would be prosecuted for the unlawful use of the title "pharmacist".
Inebriation allegation The Council agreed to refer to the Statutory Committee the case of a pharmacist who, having returned to practice after treatment for alcoholism, was now allegedly again unable to perform his duties as a pharmacist because of inebriation. The pharmacist had also allegedly been convicted of two alcohol-related offences.
The Council agreed that a draft standard for the provision of on-line pharmacy services should be finalised and published as soon as possible, in the light of the opening of the first on-line pharmacy service (PJ, November 27, p849) and the expected establishment of others.
Mrs SUSAN SHARPE (director of professional standards) said that the approach the Council should take to on-line pharmacy services was an important issue. The Government was committed to developing electronic commerce in all aspects of the provision of goods and services.
The Council needed to address the issue of ensuring that any developments in on-line services complied with quality standards and security measures for information provided over the internet. It had to ensure that the quality of service was not compromised. It had to ensure that it did not undermine existing policies about access to services through the development of on-line pharmacy.
Against the climate of the Government's opinion and European positions, the Council had to make sure that it did not put itself into a position where it was taking a reactionary, head-in-the-sand position.
A Council Statement had been prepared which endeavoured to identify the concerns PJ, December 4, p895), and the Council should now set the parameters which would encourage members not to rush into a market-place before there was agreement regarding appropriate security measures.
Professor SCHOFIELD said that the development was foreseeable. The Council should spend time looking at such developments and positioning itself in order to deal with them. Perhaps it should spend more time on discussing such issues and less discussing procedural matters in a rather nit-picking way. If it did that, it would do the profession a great service.
The VICE-PRESIDENT felt that changes were emerging that would have a profound effect on pharmacy and its practice. That issue had to be urgently addressed. The Council should look at futures in accordance with the point Professor Schofield had highlighted. It was important that whatever changes took place the standards associated with them were robust in the interests of patients.
Mr PATEL said that the internet was a powerful force for change. Pharmacy's regulations and Code of Ethics were there to protect the public from dangers and also, when it was in the public interest, to protect the profession offering the services. With more and more potent medicines available on the market, the Society had to take a strong stance. It was in the public interest to ensure that appropriate advice and products went hand in hand.
The Society had to put its arguments to patient groups to make sure that they were informed and were supportive. It had to do the same with the doctors, nurses and key policy developers.
It should also ensure that its own members understood the arguments and were supportive. It had to educate and empower members to ensure that their practices at local level were of a higher standard than at present. Action had to be taken to enable them to do that.
Mr DARLING said the ethics working party had on-line services at the top of its agenda. He reminded the Council that a paper had been presented to the Law and Ethics Committee in October.
The PRESIDENT said that the standards should be set by the end of the year so that there could be an announcement early in January, 2000.
Dr EVANS was disturbed at the negative slant that was being given. The development of internet selling should not be seen entirely as a threat to existing businesses. It also offered some prospects of better service for patients.
The Council agreed that in future the annual election of the Society's President, Vice-President and Treasurer should take place in public. This procedure would replace the current system under which the real elections are held in private with the successful candidate for each post then becoming the only nominee in a public repeat of the election.
The Council's decision arose from consideration of a report produced by a small group of Council members which had examined the mechanism for electing the President and other Officers of the Society. All other matters covered in the report were referred back to the group with a request that, rather than just make recommendations, it should offer a range of options and examine the possible consequences of those options.
Among other things, the report had recommended that the office of President should be split into two - a President with a ceremonial and ambassadorial role and
a Chairman with a managerial and political role. The Officers would be the President, the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and
the Treasurer. Neither the immediate past President not immediate past Chairman would be an Officer.
Mr CURPHEY thought that, even if the document was referred back, the recommendation regarding the selection process could be put in place for June. That was the part that bothered people the most.
Dr EVANS felt that the biggest criticism of the election process was that the genuine election was secret and the subsequent fake presentation was the thing that was put forward. Making the voting numbers (not names) public would go a long way to allay anxieties regarding transparency.
Mr KOZIOL said that he was keen on Mr Curphey's suggestion. Openness was crucial. That was at the core of some of the troubles the Council had experienced.
The VICE-PRESIDENT said that he recognised the work done by the group, but many implications arose from the paper. He proposed that the group be charged with exploring the options and consequences. More work had to be done but, in the meantime, there should be a transparent election in the public domain. As in the past, individuals should be proposed and seconded and the results published, but the election should take place in public.
The motion to hold the election in public was seconded and was carried.
Mr DARLING said there needed to be further guidance for the working party before it reconvened. The word "options" had been mentioned. A significant part was the proposed establishment of a role for a Chairman as well as for a President. Within the working party there was an appreciation of the increasing activity on the part of the President and an increasing involvement in the political scene as well as the social scene.
The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that there was a great deal to think about. The external perspective had to be considered and how those roles would be managed.
The PRESIDENT thought the views of the membership might be sought.
Mr CURPHEY said that the group should think carefully about ensuring continuity among the officers. The current proposal could mean the appointment of four new officers with no experience.
The Council agreed to establish an audit committee to deal with issues of proprietary in financial matters and look at expenditure incurred by the Society as a whole, including Council members. It would consider particular aspects of expenditure raised by the honorary auditors, individual members, the Society's Director of Resources and others.
The committee would meet three or four times a year. It would comprise one Privy Council nominee Council member and two elected members who were not Officers or chairmen of standing committees.
Setting up an audit committee was one of a number of proposals made in the report of a Council group on greater transparency in the way the Council worked.
Mr CURPHEY (chairman of the group) said that the group had a simple view and that was that in the modern world the Council had to expose just about everything it could. In terms of governance and appropriateness, it should be made clear that Council members had nothing to hide regarding expenses, allowances or activities. Council members had no choice: they would not have probity without an audit committee.
Council Briefs |
|
| Those present at the meeting, which was held on
November 30 and December 1, 1999, at 1 Lambeth High
Street, London SE1, were the President (Mrs Christine
Glover), the Vice-President (Mr Marshall Davies), the
Treasurer (Dr Gordon Appelbe), Mr David Allen, Mr Hassan
Argomandkhah, Mrs Terri Banks, Mr Peter Curphey, Mr
Sultan Dajani, Mr William Darling, Professor William
Dawson, Mr Digby Emson, Dr John Evans, Dr Gillian
Hawksworth, Mrs Patricia Hoare, Mr Mark Koziol, Mr Alan
Nathan, Mr Hemant Patel, Mrs Helen Remington, Professor
Michael Schofield, Mr Ted Smith, Mrs Linda Stone, Miss
Joanne West and the Secretary and Registrar (Miss Ann
Lewis). Also present were the chairman of the Society’s
Scottish Executive (Mr Graeme Millar) and the chairman of
the Welsh Executive (Mr Colin Ranshaw). Apologies for absence were received from Mr Andrew Burr and Professor Clare Mackie. Present by invitation were Mr Drummond Forbes (representative of the Society’s Bristol branch), Mr Clive Hodgson (secretary of the Society’s Torbay branch), Mr Allan Melzack (representative of the Society’s Manchester, Salford and Trafford branch), Mrs Anne Graham (representative of the Society’s Ayrshire branch) and Mr William Brookes (secretary of the Society’s Mersey region). Among the guests of the Council at dinner on November 30 were Mr Wally Dove (chairman, Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee), Mr Stephen Axon (general secretary, PSNC), Mr Kirit Patel (chairman, National Pharmaceutical Association), Mr John D’Arcy (director, NPA), Professor Sandy Florence (dean, School of Pharmacy, University of London), Sir Graham Hart (chairman, Pharmacy Practice Research Trust), Dr Robert Maxwell (trustee, PPRT), Mrs Sheelagh Hillan (vice-president, Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland), Mrs Sheila Maltby (secretary and chief executive, PSNI), Mr Derek Lawson (former secretary, PSNI), Lord Newton of Braintree (Parliamentary adviser to the Society) and Mr John Ferguson (former Secretary and Registrar of the Society), along with Mr Forbes, Mr Hodgson, Mr Melzack, Mrs Graham and Mr Brookes. |