The Society

News

June 3 SGM to start at 2pm in HQ hall
New leaflet on hospital pharmacists' role
Progress of Society's CPD pilot
How the Society influenced the Health and Social Care Bill

June 3 SGM to start at 2pm in HQ hall

The June 3 special general meeting of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is to begin at 2pm, the Society has announced. The meeting will take place in the assembly hall at the Society's Lambeth headquarters, with the President, Christine Glover, in the chair.

The Society says that the meeting has been called “to consider whether the appointment of a non-pharmacist as editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal was in the best interest of members; and whether the appointment merits censure by the meeting of the Council or individual members, or has led to loss of confidence in the Council by members attending the meeting”.

The Society is required to convene a special general meeting upon the requisition in writing of at least 30 members of the Society. The June 3 meeting has been requested by two such groups of members, one led by Ashwin Tanna and the other by Philip Walton.

Members seeking further information about the meeting should contact the Secretary and Registrar's office on 020 7735 9141.

New leaflet on hospital pharmacists' role

A new leaflet on the role of hospital pharmacists is now available. It has been produced by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society Britain and the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists to highlight hospital pharmacists' specialist skills and responsibilities and to outline the implications for hospital pharmacy of the National Health Service modernisation programme.

The leaflet, “Hospital pharmacy: the right medicine”, is intended for decision-makers and others who can influence the state of hospital pharmacy. To complement the leaflet, the Society is producing a display stand to use at health care conferences and events.

The leaflet was launched at the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists annual weekend school, held in Harrogate early in April. Dr Jim Smith, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer for England, drew attention to the leaflet during his address, saying that the Department of Health particularly welcomed such initiatives.

Helen Remington, member of the Society's Council and president of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists, who launched the leaflet at the weekend school, said: “Hospital pharmacists are a vital part of the NHS team and cover a broad range of services in a variety of practice areas, from local community hospitals to large acute trusts. I am delighted that the Society and the Guild have come together to produce this leaflet that will help to highlight this important area of the profession.”

Copies of the leaflet can be obtained by contacting David Daley, Public Relations Unit, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, 1 Lambeth High Street, London SE1 7JN (e-mail ddaley@rpsgb.org.uk. Copies may also be ordered on-line via the Society's website at www.rpsgb.org.uk.

Progress of Society's CPD pilot

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's pilot programme for continuing professional development has been generally well received by participants, according to Dr Robert Dewdney, head of the Society's education division.

Speaking to the Society's Birmingham branch on April 26, Dr Dewdney explained that the aims of the pilot study had been to find out how many pharmacists would voluntarily participate in a CPD programme, how many would submit CPD portfolios, what the quality of their submissions would be, and what attitudes they had to their involvement. The pilot had chiefly been carried out in a stratified sample of 450 pharmacists, structured by gender, age and sector. Half of the pharmacists were also offered the help of a facilitator.

Around 70 per cent of those offered the scheme had agreed to participate. Community pharmacists over the age of 50 years had been least well represented of all age groups. Six to seven months after the start of the scheme, 40 per cent had submitted a CPD portfolio. Male pharmacists were less likely to submit and women in all sectors of employment had higher than average submission rates. The presence of a facilitator doubled the level of submissions.

Pharmacists who had participated said their competence and confidence had been enhanced. Time spent completing the portfolio was seen as less of a hindrance than they had originally thought. Pharmacists who had worked with a facilitator had more positive statements about the project than those without.

Dr Dewdney said that the Society envisaged CPD creating pharmacists with the same aura of quality as pharmaceutical products. Health care was moving rapidly to a universal CPD system. However, one of the dangers was that CPD would be seen in terms of attending courses, when in fact it could include various activities, such as critical incident analysis, teaching, problem solving, audit and work shadowing.

The quality of CPD was important, and the media and politicians expected feedback. The assessment of CPD records required consistent evaluation, and future research would concentrate on the validity of rating methods for the CPD portfolio and on scaling up the scheme in order to serve the whole profession.

It was likely that the centres for pharmacy postgraduate education would increasingly have their tutors operate as CPD facilitators. There could be a role for primary care group pharmacists, and employers would almost inevitably become involved in facilitation of CPD. The Society would then take on the role of providing independent audit and evaluation for CPD.

Outsiders were keen on formal assessment, such as examinations, but the Society felt that a combination with other methods was possible. What was most important was the practitioner's commitment to CPD.

Dr Dewdney believed that the Society's CPD scheme would roll out nationally over the coming years, with some structure being introduced in 2002; in time, action would have to be taken against non-compliers. Because competencies would be linked to specialities, the membership might in future not have the right to practice in different zones of the profession.
— Contributed.

How the Society influenced the Health and Social Care Bill

The Health and Social Care Bill received Royal Assent on May 11. Throughout the Bill’s progress through Parliament, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Public Affairs Directorate focused considerable effort on ensuring that parliamentarians in both Houses understood its concerns on key issues. This article examines the Society's work behind the scenes to ensure that its views were considered

The Health and Social Care Bill has attracted attention mainly because of high profile provisions such as the abolition of community health councils — dropped at the 11th hour following a shock amendment in the Lords. However, the Bill also includes much within it that will have a direct effect on pharmacy. To ensure that the Society's concerns were raised, a programme of briefings was held in both Houses of Parliament, after which a number of “probing amendments” were raised in the Society's name in the Lords by both Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers.

Beverley Parkin, the Society's Director of Public Affairs, explained that lobbying at this level rarely seeks to bring an amendment to a vote. “The aim is to elicit useful further detail, a commitment to consultation or even some manner of concession from the Minister,” she said.

One issue raised was the criteria for inclusion on practitioner lists to be drawn up by health authorities. The Society's concern is that that the lists should be practicable, consistent and fair. The Minister conceded further consultation on the issue. Similarly, on the extension of prescribing rights, the Society received an assurance that these would be developed after “informal and formal consultation with relevant organisations”.

Another matter that concerned the Society — and others, including the National Pharmaceutical Association — was the proposed changes to the rules governing the use of information about patients. Would they prejudice the ability of community pharmacists to run their businesses effectively? Could clauses force pharmacists into disclosing patient-specific data against their ethical obligations and without patients' informed consent? On the former, the Minister responded: “It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which we would want to prohibit ... a pharmacy from using data from dispensed prescriptions for managing stock.” On the latter, the Government was forced to introduce a Patient Information Advisory Group to oversee disclosure of confidential information. On both matters, as the detail emerges through Statutory Instruments, the Society will have further opportunities to influence the final form.

Local pharmaceutical services

The Society supported an amendment, secured by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, to ensure that, before introducing local pharmaceutical services (LPS) schemes, health authorities must assess the effects of proposals on overall pharmaceutical service provision. The Society wants to see a high degree of pharmacist involvement in LPS schemes and called on the Government to help motivate the profession to engage with the opportunities presented.

Ms Parkin said: “Communicating with parliamentarians about the profession's concerns on this Bill has been a major task but a worthwhile one. The profession has featured throughout the stages of the Bill and the importance of pharmacists in health care has been reinforced by all the main political parties. The Society is now far better placed to influence future health legislation.”
— Contributed.