From Mr P. M. Rutter, MRPharmS
SIR,-The recent article (PJ, March 11, p414) concisely summarised the remit and role of pharmacy development groups (PDGs). However, readers may have been left with the impression that all is well with the Society's initiative of devolving the Pharmacy in a New Age process down to the membership. My personal experience with PDGs is somewhat different.
PDGs are relatively embryonic and are currently only surviving by the continued commitment and enthusiasm of a small band of dedicated, hard working, motivated pharmacists. Herein lies the problem.
If you attend committee meetings of the local pharmaceutical committee, local branch or PDG, invariably you notice that the nucleus of each committee is composed of the same people. The overwhelming majority of practising pharmacists rely on these select few to drive the profession forward. However, altruistic behaviour does have its limits. If one or more of these "active" practitioners decides that their personal life comes first and not pharmacy then momentum is lost and at worst ceases altogether. Locally, two PDGs have had to disband for such reasons, although one group has recently risen phoenix-like and is once more active.
Members from these PDGs are no different than their local peers and are committed and enthusiastic. However not all PDGs are flourishing and many are stagnating with very little to show for all their effort. This serves to show that commitment and enthusiasm only goes so far to having an active and successful PDG. What else is needed? In a word - money.
To date, PDGs have been cash starved. The Society has recently offered professional development awards to help the development of professional services locally. This initiative should be commended but not all PDGs will benefit. Money needs to be allocated to every PDG on a more equitable basis to allow all PDGs to survive and grow so that their long term futures can be guaranteed. How can this be achieved?
I propose that local branches be dissolved and each local branch member becomes an associate member of the PDG. As a local branch secretary I believe I can speak with some authority on the state of the local branch structure. The current system in operation is rapidly becoming obsolete. Attendance at local branch meetings is low, typically 10 to 15 per cent of the membership. This is despite many local branches sending regular newsletters, accrediting their meetings with the College of Pharmacy Practice and having joint meetings with other branches or other health care professionals. Now is the time for change. The future lies with PDGs in promoting the profession locally. Transfer of branch grants to PDGs will enable money to be channelled into PDG activity to develop local services. Meetings and social events for the associate members of the PDG could still be arranged via the formation of a subcommittee of the PDG (in affect the local branch committee). The dissolution of local branches would serve to inject cash into the PDG at no detriment to current branch activity. It would also serve to cut down on meeting overload, a problem most "active" members will know too well. The profession cannot afford for PDGs to fail; however regular income is needed to allow PDGs to formulate and implement a successful strategy for their continued success. If PDGs have to rely on "hand-outs" from LPCs, sponsorship or bidding for awards then I fear the future is bleak for their long-term future. Local branch grants represent an ideal source of already allocated money. No new money needs to be found; it just needs to be redistributed.
Paul Rutter
Southampton