Main points
|
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, at its meeting on April 4 and 5, agreed that some, but not all, of the draft revised Code of Ethics - amended to take account of observations received during the consultation process - should be presented for adoption by the Society's annual general meeting on May 10. The ethics working party would continue to deal with the remainder of the consultation document, taking into account the comments received and the changes that would be required as a consequence of new legislation.
Mr DARLING (chairman of the working party) said that, before being presented to an AGM, parts of the revised code needed further work for a number of reasons. One was the need to do justice to the many and varied comments that had come from the consultation period, both from members and from other organisations. Another was the need to give full consideration to the implications of very recent pieces of legislation affecting matters such as electronic commerce and data protection.
Above all, there was the additional dimension of the attitude of Government, other health care professionals and patients to the professions -their attitude to poor clinical performance, to the need for competence, and to the need for all health care professionals to demonstrate and to give evidence of keeping up-to-date.
With that background, the working party had decided that there was a need for a public declaration of intent - a declaration of the key responsibilities of the pharmacist and the requirement of the Council, supported by the membership at an AGM, that pharmacists should not just keep up to date but should ensure improving continuing professional competence.
However, the working party had decided that the standards of professional performance required more time and more work and that personal responsibilities and service specifications should remain on the table. The working party would work on those parts of the document with a view to putting them before the 2001 AGM. An amended version of Part One of the document, "Pharmacists' ethics" and "The role and accountability of a pharmacist" (renamed "The key responsibilities of a pharmacist") would be put to the 2000 AGM, as would standards of professional performance under the headings "Professional competence" and "Confidentiality".
The document put before the AGM would incorporate a number of changes that the working party believed were significant improvements. The changes had been made in the light of the observations received, which had been most helpful and had demonstrated the benefit of consultation.
While it would not be the easiest of tasks for the Professional Standards Directorate to function within two merged documents, the working party felt that it was the most appropriate way forward. It was fundamental that the Society demonstrated to the Government, to the National Health Service, to the other professions and to patients that the Council and the profession were determined to ensure a pharmaceutical practice of the highest possible standards, and that the practitioners providing that service were taking every step possible to ensure that that service was of the highest possible standard.
Mr Darling said he therefore wished to move that the paragraphs referred to in Council papers be taken to the AGM to replace the preface in the existing code and that the working party should continue to deal with the remainder of the consultation document, taking into account the comments received and the changes which would be required as a consequence of legislation.
The TREASURER seconded the proposal, which was agreed.
At the request of the Slough branch, the Council agreed that a debate on method of election of the Council should be included in the discussion session at the 2000 branch representatives' meeting (see p584). The debate would be timely because the Council election was one issue being examined by the Council's Health Act working party.
The Council confirmed that in 2002, when the presidency of the Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union was due to be awarded to a representative of the United Kingdom, the position should go to Mr Darling, who was head of the UK delegation to the PGEU.
The Council noted that, under the PGEU statutes, a representative of the UK would serve on the PGEU executive committee until the end of 2003 and assume the presidency for the calendar year 2002. It was agreed that Mr Darling should be that person whether or not he remained a Council member thought that period.
The Council also agreed that Mr Patel should become a member of the UK delegation to the PGEU when Mr Darling became its president, subject to Mr Patel being a member of the Council at that time.
The Society's audit development fellow (Mr David Pruce) reported that the Society had been spreading the message of clinical governance in pharmacy and had found that the major problem with implementing it at the local level was a lack of funding.
Meetings had been held with a number of local pharmaceutical committees, most of which had take the matter seriously and were looking at appointing a clinical governance lead and conducting a baseline assessment using the Society' community pharmacy clinical governance assessment tool. Some LPCs had been able to obtain funding to support clinical governance work and to deal with any quality issues that might arise. But many health authorities were telling LPCs to seek funding from primary care groups, which in turn were saying that community pharmacy was not their responsibility and referring them back to health authorities.
The Society was advancing its case at both regional and national levels. The National Health Service Executive clinical governance implementation team had been sympathetic and had been asked to bring its influence to bear nationally to support the Society's message. But the fear was that, in the absence of funding at the local level, clinical governance would be impossible to implement in community pharmacy.
The Council agreed to ask the Policy Support Unit, in consultation with Mr Patel and others as appropriate, to prepare a paper on the advantages and disadvantages of different methods for the supply of emergency hormonal contraception through pharmacies. The Council would consider the paper either at its brief meeting in May or at its full meeting in June.
The decision followed the presentation of an update by the SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR on progress to provide training and guidance for pharmacists should EHC products become available through pharmacies without a doctor's prescription. The Secretary and Registrar reminded Council members that, although the agenda item referred to "should a product become available as a pharmacy medicine", the Council's policy was to promote the supply of EHC through pharmacies without specifying a particular route.
An application had been made for a product to become a pharmacy (P) medicine. The Society's Director of Public Affairs (Ms Beverley Parkin) had been promoting the Council's policy on sexual health to a range of opinion formers. At the January meeting of the Practice Committee she had been asked to co-ordinate a project to identify the support and training needs of the profession in the event of hormonal contraception being supplied through pharmacies. Discussions with the Department of Health had shown strong support for the work. A multidisciplinary steering group had been convened. The training would be done by the Centre For Pharmacy Postgraduate Education, and comments would be invited from other interested parties on the issues being considered by the group.
A project manager had been appointed from within the Public Affairs Directorate and the group would meet in May with Mr Curphey as chairman. It was hoped that a paper would be ready for the Practice Committee meeting in July. To support the work, a focus group would be organised in the near future to capture pharmacists' views.
Miss STRATH reported that, following an approach from the Minister of Health in Scotland, a group was to be set up in Scotland to move forward the agenda in Scotland as well. It was important that they should work in close co-operation and in parallel across Britain.
Mr PATEL said that he had requested that the item be put on the agenda for the meeting because he felt that the Society's policy was not clear. He understood that the NPA had written in October, 1999, to ask the Society for clarification as to where the Council was in terms of policy. The Council had had time to formulate a policy but the opportunity had not been taken.
The PRESIDENT replied that the Council had a policy.
Mrs BANKS thought that the policy was absolutely clear. The Council was concerned with supporting the Government on reducing, in particular, teenage pregnancies and other social issues. It wanted to show how pharmacy could support the Government's agenda. If Council members wanted to change that policy they ought to consider a proper paper under the normal procedure.
Mr PATEL pointed out that he had contacted the office before the agenda papers went out and he had discussed the matter with the Secretary and Registrar. Whether or not the Council got involved in procedural technicalities, he felt it would be useful for it to hear what he had to say because it was an important issue and there had been debate and correspondence in The Pharmaceutical Journal and over the internet.
Mrs STONE said that Mr Patel was very concerned, as she was too. If the Council was going to revisit policy that might affect its negotiating stance, it should be aware that it was in open business, since policy matter were normally discussed in closed business.
Professor MACKIE supported the matter being discussed in open business. When the Council had discussed the issue at its February meeting it had taken it under closed business for legal reasons. The result was that the membership was not clear about the Society's view. In The Journal in the past week or two there had been correspondence from a number of other bodies representing pharmacy. It would be useful to have a balanced discussion. She felt strongly that pharmacists should be encouraged as much as possible to be in a position to be able to supply emergency hormonal contraception to the clients who needed it most. A POM-to-P switch was one route, but other routes could also be taken. It was healthy and constructive for Council to have that discussion without going into the legalities of it.
Regarding Mrs Stone's point about a negotiating position, Professor Mackie said that she did not believe that they were negotiating. What happened was that the MCA would be required to refer matters to the CSM and the Medicines Commission. The system was there.
Professor Mackie feared that without a discussion bad feeling would be engendered. She felt Mr Patel should be allowed to speak. She said that a number of routes should be taken rather than one particular route.
The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said it had been made clear that the policy was that the supply of EHC should be available through pharmacies.
The PRESIDENT said that the policy was that the Society simply wanted to be involved. The Council had not defined the route. All options were open.
Professor MACKIE said that she did not have a problem with that.
The PRESIDENT felt that at present they should accept the policy and get on with moving forward.
Mr PATEL said he had an opposing view. He had made a presentation to the local pharmaceutical committees' conference (PJ, March 25, p485) and had received the loudest and longest applause for expressing the view that he was about to make. Secondly, the National Pharmaceutical Association had resolved to press for EHC to be retained as a POM on the grounds of public health, the supply made initially by group protocols. The NPA had also resolved to take action as necessary to ensure that EHC, by whatever mechanism of supply, was free of charge at the time of need. Also Mr Patel had received e-mails since starting the campaign two weeks previously which indicated that pharmacists preferred the NPA approach.
The PRESIDENT pointed out that that the NPA's approach was not closed off, since the Society policy left open all options.
Mr PATEL said that the POM-to-P route should be opposed for a number of reasons. It was not in the long term interests of community pharmacists to have two parallel routes available at the same time. He was totally opposed to the transfer of EHC from the POM list to the P list.
Professor DAWSON thought that if Mr Patel wished to change Council policy, then the Council should use the mechanism for that. Council members needed preparation for discussing such a major issue.
Mr BURR said that Mr Patel had come to Council with the best intentions, but using an update procedure was not the way to present the matter on the agenda.
Mrs BANKS proposed that the Policy Support Unit be asked, in consultation with Mr Patel and others as appropriate, to bring to a future Council meeting a paper which set out the public interest - not just the interest of community pharmacy - and the pros and cons of changing and limiting policy in the way proposed by Mr Patel.
The PRESIDENT felt that that was a helpful suggestion. The Society's current policy did not preclude what Mr Patel wanted. When he had asked for the matter to be put on the agenda, he had not made it clear that he wanted to change the policy. Mrs Banks's suggestion was reasonable and the President asked the Council to support it.
Mr PATEL said that anybody who had read The Pharmaceutical Journal or Chemist & Druggist would be aware of the views he had expressed at the LPC conference and at the NPA. There had been no doubt that he was seeking to have the policy changed. He was prepared to work overnight to produce a paper based on the presentation he had made and would be happy to discuss it the next day. People at grass roots level, pharmacy contractors, had said that they did not want a POM-to-P switch.
The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR replied that Mr Patel had not allowed enough time for a policy paper to be included in the Council meeting agenda.
Mr CURPHEY outlined reasons why it would be inappropriate to continue by debating the Council's policy in public.
Professor SCHOFIELD said that he agreed completely with Mr Curphey. Running a professional body was a very difficult business, and he supported the Secretary and Registrar on process matters.
The TREASURER said that, at the meeting which was to take place between interested parties, the Society's representatives might be asked which route they would prefer. What would be their position at that time? The Council had not decided.
The PRESIDENT said that choosing a preferred route would require a policy discussion. Mr Patel was free to put a paper in to the policy unit.
Mrs STONE, seconding Mrs Banks's proposal, said that if the Society was to specify a preferred route, she wanted to see details and options regarding how each route would work. The Council should support the proposal of Mrs Banks and look as a matter of urgency at all the options together.
The PRESIDENT asked the Council for a decision on Mrs Banks's suggestion.
Mr BURR sought assurance that the proposal of Mrs Banks would not cause delay in such a way that the Society was outmanoeuvred.
The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR replied that Mr Burr's question could not be answered because it was not known when the consultation would commence. She found it hard to believe that there would not be time. It would be appropriate to consider the matter at the Council's June meeting, provided the time schedule allowed for it, but the Council was also to have a brief meeting in May and there would also be an opportunity then.
The TREASURER said that, as he understood it, Council members, if asked, would stick to the policy that the service should be through pharmacies and they would have to say that they did not have a preferred route. That was the dilemma that they were in.
The PRESIDENT felt that that was a strength and not a weakness. It gave flexibility and an ability to fit in with the agenda that came forward. The Council had decided to look at the preferred options for delivering the policy. If the answer was needed early, then the matter would be discussed at the short May meeting, and if necessary the meeting would have to be extended. Otherwise it would be dealt with in June.
The VICE-PRESIDENT felt that the paper needed to look at two aspects. There was the legal process through which the Committee on Safety of Medicines decided whether or not reclassification from POM to P would be safe. There was also the public policy issue of what was the most desirable route of supply for such products, bearing in mind the aims and objectives of Government, the problems of teenage pregnancy, and so forth. The Council needed a balanced paper that looked at the subject not only from the profession's point of view but also from the point of view of others, which would have a bearing on which way things could eventually emerge. That would give the basis for a better debate and a more informed discussion with any body with which they might want to raise the matter subsequently.
Mr PATEL said that he would continue his campaign to get pharmacists involved in the discussion at a local and national level. Events might force them in a particular direction, but he would not stop his campaign.
The Council agreed that in future new members should be appointed to the Statutory Committee only after the placement of advertisements, using a format similar to that for public appointments. The new appointment method would reflect the Government's recent decision that a new chairman for the Statutory Committee should be appointed only after the post had been advertised. The Council noted that the Society expected to hear who had been appointed very shortly.
The Council agreed that a working group that had been set up to examine the skills needed by the pharmacist of the future should continue its work.
The Council made its decision after Mr KOZIOL had presented a progress report on the group's work. Mr Koziol said that the catalyst for the project had been one of the Council's informal "stocktaking and diagnosis" days, at which the question of pharmacists' future skill needs had been raised. The first phase of the group's work had been the thinking phase. The group had worked on the basic premise that team working with partners in health care would be inevitable in the future. The pharmacist's contribution therefore had to focus on a comprehensive service involving the other team players. Once that comprehensive service was developed, it was then possible to develop skills to underpin the particular service provision.
The group had decided to look externally to establish the needs, then to extrapolate those needs into services delivered and therefore the skills required by pharmacists. Although looking initially at one project, the group had hoped to establish a methodology that could be used elsewhere to the benefit of the profession and for the benefit of customers and patients.
The group had decided to identify one area of health and then the key contributors involved in that area, both at present and in the future. The area chosen was the elderly. One member of the group (not a pharmacist) had talked with a whole range of health care practitioners and carers, asking about their hopes and aspirations and the practical problems that they had in delivering whatever it was that they delivered. He had not asked specifically about pharmacy issues.
The next phase had been to make some predictions as to where services would be required to be delivered in the future and how pharmacists could fit in. This phase, based on more than 1,800 perception statements, had taken several months to complete. Collation of the perception statements had generated about 20 prediction clusters. When statements from different workers in the field were superimposed, common threads had begun to develop. A clear and consistent picture of unmet needs had started to emerge, with major roles becoming apparent for pharmacists. The group had felt that there was a receptiveness and even an expectation by and from others that it was the pharmacists who would actually get involved in fulfilling the roles.
In December, 1999, the Council had agreed that the skill group should continue with the project. Since then, the group had progressed to "reflecting and refining" and getting to the service specification.
Looking at reflecting and refining, Mr Koziol said one could not define the skills without first defining the service. The deficiencies in care derived from the perception statements had enabled the group to identify and make some predictions and it had begun to get some clues regarding the kinds of areas where services would be required or would be helpful. The group was talking to practising GPs, nurses, health visitors, etc, and organisations such as Age Concern. There was also a need to look at statistics.
The statistics had been very illuminating. For example, 50 per cent of falls in those aged over 65 years were drug-related. There could be no doubt that pharmacy should have a greater authority in that area. Twenty per cent of elderly people admitted to hospital as the result of a serious fall died within six months and almost 50 per cent died within two years. In 1994, 300,000 over-65s had been admitted to hospital as a result of serious falls.
Having got to the stage at which services could be specified, the group had chosen the service of preventing falls in the elderly. It could now begin to develop some of the skills and training required. But it still needed to specify what the service was. The group had talked to Age Concern, which was keen to work with the Society in this area. The group needed to sit down with Age Concern and commence the specification dialogue - to find out the nuts and bolts of the service that would be useful. It also needed to find funding to pilot any service that might be specified and roll it out in a scientific fashion to measure some of the outcomes and benefits, etc. Once the service had been specified, and hopefully sharpened by trials and pilots, it would be important to work closely with academics to define the skills that all pharmacists would need to get involved.
What about the process? The group was looking to produce a transferable methodology with techniques that could be used to establish what services pharmacists could provide in other areas - and there were plenty of areas available, such as those for which the Government was setting targets.
What were the options for Council currently? The group requested that the Council committed itself to the completion of the current project. The Council should also accept the methodology that had been used and agree to the development of a forward plan to start moving the methodology into other areas of service provision.
Answering a question from Mr BURR, Mr KOZIOL said that all that was needed was the allocation of resources. The people and the skills for the project were already there, and it appeared that the methodology worked.
Mr CURPHEY said that the work raised a concern that the Practice Committee might be producing its practice guidance without actually understanding what was needed and what skills pharmacists needed to deliver.
Mr BURR said that when looking at a service specification the group needed to give thought to whether the service could be delivered by other accredited health professionals. Would the group restrict itself to pharmacists?
Mr KOZIOL replied that it had not yet reached that stage. But the best models were the multidisciplinary team approach models.
Mrs SHARPE (Director of Professional Standards) said that, while all sorts of skills from other health professionals might be needed, the group's work was specifically to do with the skills of the pharmacy profession. That was not in any way to suggest that the group was not looking at a team based approach. The point of the work was to identify the skills that pharmacists needed to bring to the table. It might well be that as a fall-out there were all sorts of other skills from other health professionals associated but they had to remember that the work they were to do was specifically to do with the skills of their profession. That was not in any way to suggest that they were not looking at a team based approach.
Mr BURR said that he hoped that the Society would take the lead in introducing a medicine management service, even if other professions played a part. The danger would be that the pharmacists would get a slice but never achieve the cake.
Mrs REMINGTON felt that what was distinctive about pharmacists was their underpinning knowledge on medication use. The pharmacist's value was in risk assessment of the patient associated with the knowledge of the patient's medication. Perhaps the group needed to bring into the analysis not just skills but underpinning knowledge. Associated with each activity were tasks, and associated with the tasks were competencies. People across the health care professions had different aspects of those competencies. It should be approached, as Mr Burr had suggested, with the medicines management label. The competencies should be listed and then they could do a skill mix analysis.
Mr ARGOMANDKHAH felt that the project was to identify the services that the pharmacist would have to deliver as part of a bigger multidisciplinary service and then ascertain what skills the pharmacist needed and how those could be achieved. They had to make sure they had the skills before they talked about the bigger picture.
Professor DAWSON felt that the study should be packaged and branded as the Society model. If another area was susceptible to the same methodology, the Society would be able to give a good example of how the profession could lead.
The VICE-PRESIDENT (who chaired this part of the meeting in the temporary absence of the President) congratulated the group on what had been done. The work now had to be developed into a package that could be branded where the Society were taking a lead. That could then be introduced on a national basis in Scotland, England and Wales. A second lesson was for the Practice Committee to look at the implications of what had been done by the group and the ways in which skills had been developed and competencies had been developed in order to put the initiatives in practice in the future.
The Council approved the publication of a discussion paper on "Developing pharmacy values", which argued that there was a need in pharmacy for greater "value literacy" - an expression which included an awareness of, and an interest in, value and ethical issues in pharmacy and a capability in identifying, discussing and handling them.
The paper had been produced by Professor Nick Barber (head, centre for practice and policy, School of Pharmacy, University of London) and Dr Alan Cribb (deputy director, centre for public policy research, King's College London). It had been commissioned to promote discussion and debate within the profession.
It was intended that the paper should be published to coincide with the annual general meeting. It was hoped that it would stimulate discussion as the new approach to the Code of Ethics developed.
The President reported that a meeting was to take place as soon as possible between preregistration tutors in the pharmaceutical industry and members of the Preregistration Advisory Group to consider the way in which preregistration experience in the industry could fit into the new preregistration performance standards agreed by the Council in December, 1999.
The President said that, as agreed at the February Council meeting, representatives of the Industrial Pharmacists Group and the Preregistration Advisory Group had met on March 31. Although they had been unable to agree as to how the needs of industry might be met, both sides had felt that further progress might be made through a meeting between industry tutors and members of the Preregistration Advisory Group. None of the Industrial Pharmacists Group representatives at the meeting had been tutors themselves.
The Council endorsed proposals drawn up by the Community Pharmacy Research Consortium Steering Group for a new programme of research into how the delivery and organisation of services in community pharmacy should be restructured to meet the challenge of new roles and responsibilities in the primary health care team while maintaining the existing range of core pharmaceutical services.
The Council also endorsed proposals for preliminary feasibility studies on the structure and organisation of practice in community pharmacy and on the process of innovation in community pharmacy.
The research programme would take into account research conducted in relation to small- and medium-sized businesses as well as health care.
The steering group's proposals were also being considered by the Society's partner organisations in the consortium - the Company Chemists Association, the National Pharmaceutical Association, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the Scottish Pharmaceutical General Council.
The Council noted that the proposals had been stimulated in the first instance by the PSNC-led medicines management research group, which was looking to the consortium to conduct research that would inform implementation of its project. It was also noted that the proposals coincided with the launch of the National Health Service Executive's new national research and development programme on service delivery and organisation.
The Council agreed that Mrs Sue Sharpe (Director of Professional Standards) should be the Society's lead person in taking forward the topic of electronic commerce within the Society, with specialist expertise drawn in, from within the Society and externally, as required. The Council made its decision after considering a briefing paper on the potential impact of e-commerce on pharmacy.
It was also agreed that the Council would keep a careful watching brief on e-commerce as it developed, ensuring that the Society's professional standards and Code of Ethics kept pace with the potential impact on pharmacy practice of such a rapidly evolving technology.
Introducing the paper, Mr ALLEN said that there were a number of objectives to achieve. The prime one was to assess the potential impact of e-commerce on pharmacy and pharmaceutical services, addressing a number of professional and regulatory issues. The interim standard statement produced at the turn of the year had left the Society in a reasonably strong position so far as e-commerce was concerned. Nevertheless, there was more work to be done and some policy proposals would have to be produced. One question to be considered was whether the Society, or some other organisation, should "kitemark" internet pharmacy sites.
Mr DARLING said that the reference to interim standards prompted him to say that standards were very high on the agenda of the ethics working party. Further consultations would take place in order to ensure that what eventually appeared in the code was within the law.
Answering a question from Mr ARGOMANDKHAH, Mrs SHARPE (Director of Professional Standards) replied that at present e-pharmacy was lawful if it was conducted from physical premises that were registered with the Society and therefore subject to the Society's inspection. That was a valuable safeguard to be able to monitor the way in which services were provided and to make sure that identifiable pharmacists were assuming professional responsibility for supplying the professional service.
The Council agreed that a small group of Council members and the Director of Professional Standards (Mrs Sharpe) should finalise the Society's response to the Medicines Control Agency consultation document on the sale, supply and administration of medicines by health professionals under patient group directions (group protocols) (PJ, March 18, p424).
The Council made its decision after considering at length the consultation document, a background paper on the topic and an initial draft response. It was agreed that the draft response could benefit from further revision in the light of the Council's debate. Since the deadline for responses was before the next Council meeting, the Council agreed to delegate the finalisation of the response to a small group.
The Council agreed the format of information to be published annually about the performance of individual Council members.
On the recommendation of the Council group on greater transparency in the way Council works, the Council agreed that the annual report should in future include information on each Council member (including Privy Council nominees), as follows: committee positions held; attendance at Council, committee and working group meetings (including both expected attendance and actual attendance); branch and regional meetings addressed and attended (including number of meetings a Council member had been invited to address or attend and the number actually addressed or attended); and representation on outside bodies and at meetings, etc. The record would not include information on attendance at meetings of a Council member's own branch, or other meetings for which fees and expenses were not claimed.
The Council also agreed that the total amount of expenses and allowances claimed by each Council member would be published in the annual accounts, which would also contain the President's and the Vice-President's allowances and information relating to senior management remuneration, covering all benefits in kind and pension contributions paid by the Society.
The Council accepted a recommendation that it should not proceed with an earlier decision to publish in The Pharmaceutical Journal each year a summation of the activity of each Council member. The group's view was that it would not be fair in the election process to allow sitting Council members to be able to have published, as it were, a background curriculum vitae when a new member who wished to stand for election would be limited to the 630-word tariff applied to the biographical details and statement of policy. The Council agreed instead that each year, in the issue of The Journal in which the report of the February Council meeting was published, a reference would be made to the information contained in the annual report.
The Council also agreed to look into further matters that might affect transparency of Council and committee proceedings, including the production and format of minutes, the provision of information on non-staff and non-Council members who represented the Society at meetings, and the possibility of publishing a verbatim transcript of the reportable parts of Council meetings.
As part of a corporate governance framework, the Council approved a revised code of conduct for Council members, together with a statement of undertaking that members would comply with the code, a register for the declaration of interests, gifts and hospitality and a structure for dealing with inappropriate conduct, including proposals for a conduct panel that would be independent of the Council. The system would be adopted initially on a voluntary basis with a view to eventually enshrining it in the Byelaws after any necessary amendment in the light of comment and experience.
Introducing the documents, the Vice-President said that the code was intended to protect members of Council. It was not intended to make life difficult or to put Council members in difficulty by accident. It related only to serious matters of misconduct. He believed that the Council could legitimately be criticised if it did not have a conduct procedure.
The question of what constituted conduct that seriously impaired the ability of Council to perform its functions would be determined by the conduct panel. Matters considered serious would enter a formal investigation stage, while matters considered important but not serious would result in the individual being invited to have a discussion with the President and a Privy Council nominee.
The Council was told that the code of conduct would be published so that everybody would know what Council members had signed up to. Publicity would also be given to whether or not individual Council members had signed the undertaking.
The Council agreed that the potential role of pharmacists in mental health care should be emphasised in the Society's response to Government proposals for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The Council approved a draft response that would draw attention to the way in which pharmacists with appropriate training and experience in mental health care could help reduce the occurrence of situations in the community where compulsion was used to force patients to take their medicines. They could do this by advising prescribers and by working with patients and other practitioners to inform, advise and support patients in taking their medicines and in dealing with side effects and drug interactions. They could also play an important role, with other mental health professionals, in helping patients draw up advance agreements about their treatment.
The response would draw attention to the Society's mental health task force, set up to promote pharmacists' role in mental health care and provide guidance to them on good practice in this field. It would explain that the task force was to produce a report this year giving guidance for pharmacists working in a variety of mental health care settings and specifying education, training and continuing professional development needs for such work.
The response would also give the Society's views on a range of specific points raised in the consultation.
An apology was given to the Council over events surrounding a proposal to purchase property in the Parliament View development adjacent to the headquarters building.
In September, the Officers had agreed that an option be taken to secure the purchase of a flat. The decision had been made on the recommendation of professional property advisers, both as an investment and to free valuable space for the Society. The Council had been informed of the decision but, it was acknowledged, had not been asked to confirm it and to agree that contracts should be exchanged. The Secretary and Registrar apologised for this. She said that the sequence of events was under review and would be reported back to the Council.
In May, the Council would make a decision on whether to retain the property, as part of the strategy to make better use of space, or to sell it.
Risk to public safety The Council agreed that, because of concern about the risk to public safety, a pharmacist whose competence to practise was under question should be asked to surrender his or her certificate of registration and give an undertaking not to practise until the outcome of a Statutory Committee inquiry. The pharmacist would be advised that failure to comply would result in his or her name being publicised.
The Council made its decision on the recommendation of the Infringements Committee, which had been informed that the pharmacist was awaiting sentencing following a conviction on February 10 for theft of cocaine from a number of pharmacies. One condition of the bail granted to the pharmacist during the adjournment for sentencing was that he or she should not work in a pharmacy. It was alleged that the pharmacist had been arrested for breaking that term of the bail and had subsequently been subject to stricter conditions. It was also alleged that on January 27, while working as a locum, the pharmacist had made a dispensing error that indicated a lack of competence.
The Council agreed that a complaint of misconduct should be added to any Statutory Committee inquiry ordered into the pharmacist's conviction and that the Statutory Committee should be asked to deal with the case as soon as possible.
Gross abuse of trust On the recommendation of the Infringements Committee, the Council agreed to refer to the Statutory Committee the case of a pharmacist whose actions allegedly represented a gross abuse of the trust placed in the pharmacist by employers.
It was alleged that, while in charge of a pharmacy, the pharmacist had used the pharmacy computer to access the internet to view items of a pornographic nature, had shown a pornographic image to a member of staff, and had told staff to turn away prescriptions because the computer had crashed.
It was also alleged that the pharmacist had failed to honour locum bookings with another employer. The Society had received a complaint that the pharmacist had booked to undertake locum duties for days in May and June, 1999, and for two weeks in August, 1999, but had failed to turn up for any of the dates, despite having confirmed the bookings in writing.
The committee also noted that in December, 1999, the pharmacist had been sentenced to periods of probation and community service after being found guilty of theft from an employer. This had followed an earlier conviction for theft in July, 1998.
The Council agreed that a complaint of misconduct should be added to any Statutory Committee inquiry ordered into the pharmacist's convictions.
Council briefsObituaries The Secretary and Registrar reported with regret the death of Michael Isaac Barnett (PJ, March 18, p435). The Council stood in silent tribute.
|
|
Those present at the meeting, which was held on April 4 and 5 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 Andrew Burr, 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, Professor Clare Mackie, 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).
|