Home > PJ > The Society / Daily News

The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7150 p742-745
June 2, 2001

The Society

Branch Representatives’ meeting

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s 2001 branch representatives’ meeting took place in London on May 17. We report the outcome of its debates on this and the following three pages

Meeting seeks restructuring of Society
Shorter, simpler, clearer Code of Ethics requested
Ensuring survival of local pharmacies
Call for media skills training
Regulation of e-pharmacy sought
Society asked to seek improvements in medicines pack design
Call for pharmacy degree course to cover complementary medicine
Proposal to increase BRM participation
“Lack of leadership” claim rejected
Call for more transparency in Society’s accounting
Lack of action on STV deplored
Meeting accepts non-pharmacists in senior headquarters posts
Society “should change community pharmacy image”
Statutory work breaks needed
Request for greater priority for IT developments
Support for running balances in CD registers
Not Society’s role to update students on degree accreditation

Meeting seeks restructuring of Society

A call for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to be restructured to reflect current political reality won the endorsement of the branch representatives’ meeting. But the meeting refused to go so far as to support reconstituting the Society on a federal basis with separate membership and councils for England, Wales and Scotland.

MAURICE HICKEY (Moray and Banff) proposed “that as the present structure of the Society no longer serves the best interests of its members, it should be changed in order that it reflects the current political reality of the United Kingdom and be reconstituted on a federal basis with a separate membership and Council respectively for England, Wales and Scotland”. He said that the motion was not about destroying the Society but about empowering the members to modernise the Society. Lambeth was near the seat of power at Westminster, but power now also lay in Edinburgh and Cardiff. There were different health plans for England, Wales and Scotland, with differences in prescription charges. Although 10 per cent of the Society’s members were in Scotland, its Scottish Department had a minimal budget.

MARY MACINTOSH (Moray and Banff) formally seconded the motion.

ANDREW HALES (Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan) thought that the chairmen of the Welsh and Scottish executives should be full Council members.

TONY CARSON (South West Metropolitan) agreed that the present structure needed reviewing in the light of the changing political structure in Britain, but he did not agree that the proposal offered the right answer. As long as there was a United Kingdom government based in Westminster, the organisation should be seen as responsible for all pharmacists in Britain. The Council should set up a working party to carry out a full review and look at the various alternatives. He suggested an amendment removing the reference to reconstitution on a federal basis.

The PRESIDENT informed the meeting that the Society’s budget was allocated fairly, with the regulatory side covered centrally because the regulatory powers lay in Westminster and not Edinburgh or Cardiff. Also, a working party that was looking into the constitution of the Council was to examine thoroughly the consequences of devolution with a view to allowing the Scottish and Welsh chairmen to have appropriate status.

MIKE BURDEN (Leicestershire) seconded the amendment.

The meeting agreed by way of amendment to delete all the words after “political reality”. The amended motion was carried.

Shorter, simpler, clearer Code of Ethics requested

The meeting adopted a proposal for a shorter, simpler, clearer Code of Ethics, accompanied by easily understood professional guidelines.

SIMON GAINES (Hull) proposed that, as an aid to good practice, the Council should include such a code in ‘Medicines, ethics and practice: a guide for pharmacists’, preferably on a single page, supported by a comprehensive index. Codes of practice of other health professional bodies were easier to read than the Society’s. The code should set out more concisely the key professional and ethical obligations of pharmacists. It should be comprehensible and accessible to all, including politicians and the public.

JOANNA PEACHAM (Hull), seconding the motion, felt that the MEP guide was poorly set out with a less than comprehensive index.

NICHOLAS WOOD (Chelmsford), opposing the motion, said that the revised Code of Ethics adopted by the annual general meeting on the previous evening had been a considerable improvement on its predecessor. It was counter-productive to criticise the new code, but he agreed that a comprehensive index was needed.

TONY CARSON (South West Metropolitan) also agreed that a better index was needed, but thought there were more important issues for the Council to be pursuing than producing a simplified code.

HOWARD McNULTY (Glasgow and West of Scotland) said that a simplified explanation of the code should be available for the public and the media.

ANDREW HERSOM (Hull) said that, although the Council had asked for comments on the revised code twice in the past two years, it had ignored his branch’s mention of the wordiness and difficulty of finding things. He supported the motion.

The PRESIDENT said that a Code of Ethics had to be sustainable in a court of law. When lawyers became involved, complex legal language inevitably resulted. The Society had been working with other regulatory bodies to find common themes that all the health professions could subscribe to.

The motion was carried.

Ensuring survival of local pharmacies

The meeting endorsed without debate a motion calling on the Society to do everything in its power to ensure the survival of local community pharmacies.

Proposing the motion, SUZANNE JOHNSTON (Dudley and Stourbridge) said that community pharmacists knew and cared for their customers, their treatment and the outcome of that treatment. If the nation’s network of community pharmacies was lost, it would be impossible to revive.

The motion was seconded by ANDREW HERSOM (Hull) and was carried.

Call for media skills training

The meeting supported the concept of media skills training for those who represented pharmacy.

JUNE JENKINS (Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan) proposed that Council members and others who spoke on behalf of the Society, including branch public relations officers, should wherever possible pursue a course in public speaking and media skills and familiarise themselves with the use of public address equipment.

She said that people often let themselves down when speaking publicly or presenting lectures because they could not be properly heard. Those who spoke for the Society needed to have pursued a course in public speaking.

ROSEMARY WATERS (Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan), seconding the motion, suggested that branches should be funded to acquire their own PA equipment.

SHARON BUCKLE (Nottingham) said that all pharmacists had to be communicators, and her branch suggested that instruction in public speaking should start at university level and be built upon through the rest of a pharmacist’s career.

The motion was carried.

Regulation of e-pharmacy sought

The meeting called on the Society to develop a means of regulating the sale and supply of medicines within an environment of e-commerce and online pharmacy.

Proposing a motion to that effect, PETER WORLING (Edinburgh and Lothians) acknowledged that the Council was already considering the situation and that a sudden switch to online pharmacy was unlikely, but it was necessary to maintain vigilance, particularly if online supply was to be an integral part of future pharmacy services.

PETER JONES (Edinburgh and Lothians), seconding the motion, said that in the age of e-commerce and the global economy it was vital that the Society continued to develop means of regulating the sale and supply of medicines in the interests of the safety and wellbeing of the public.

The motion was carried.

Society asked to seek improvements in medicines pack design

The meeting endorsed a proposal that the Society should lobby the Medicines Control Agency and the organisations representing prescription medicine manufacturers for improvements in pack design.

ALLAN ASHER (East Metropolitan) moved that the Council should approach both the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the British Generic Manufacturers Association “with a view to offering such advice or suggestions from practising pharmacists as it could to improve medicine pack design for both safety and usability by health care professionals and consumers”.

TONY PUGH (Brighton) seconded the motion.

STEVE GARNER (Nottingham) proposed as an amendment that the Council should also approach the MCA. The amendment was accepted.

ANTHONY COX (Birmingham) said that a working party was to look at the labelling and packaging of pharmaceuticals and would report to the Health Minister at the end of July.

The PRESIDENT informed the meeting that the working party was headed by Bob Calvert, who would welcome examples of good or bad packaging or labelling.

The motion was carried.

Call for pharmacy degree course to cover complementary medicine

A motion calling for pharmacy degree courses to include a standardised, minimum level of education and training on complementary medicine was carried.

GAVIN MILLER (British Pharmaceutical Students Association), proposing the motion, said that one in three people in the United Kingdom used complementary medicine. Pharmacists, as experts in medicines, needed to give accurate advice, particularly on interactions between prescription medicines and herbal remedies. Students did not feel they had enough training in this area, and the amount covered at individual universities varied widely.

Seconding the motion, NOEL WICKS (BPSA) said that the Code of Ethics required pharmacists only to offer advice if they had suitable training. To be true experts, pharmacists needed basic expertise in this area.

NICHOLAS WOOD (Chelmsford) said that complementary medicine was better suited to postgraduate studies rather than the undergraduate course.

MIKE BURDEN (Leicestershire) thought that the BPSA should be supported. A minimum level of training in the undergraduate course seemed sensible and logical.

MAURICE HICKEY (Moray and Banff) said that the study of complementary medicine and herbalism had helped his own practice. It was essential for students to be taught about alternative therapies.

STEVEN KAYNE (Glasgow and West of Scotland) said that pharmacists were asked about complementary medicine more than any other health care professional. It was crucial to include it in core curriculum of the pharmacy undergraduate course.

The motion was carried.

Proposal to increase BRM participation

A motion intended to increase participation in future branch representatives’ meetings was carried by the BRM.

JOHN GENTLE (Shropshire) proposed that the Council should offer unfilled places at the meeting to those branches attending. A particular aim was to increase participation by young pharmacists.

Seconding the motion, ALASTAIR BUXTON (Shropshire) said that young pharmacists needed to be encouraged to be involved in the politics of the profession.

Speaking against the motion, BRUCE RHODES (Cheltenham and Gloucester) feared that the meeting would be swamped by representatives from certain branches.

Opposing the motion, EDWARD MALLINSON (Lanarkshire) said that flooding the meeting with complimentary places was not the answer. Representatives who had taken part year after year should relinquish their places in favour of younger delegates.

ROGER MILLS (Slough), supporting the motion, suggested that spare places could be filled by extra representatives without speaking or voting rights. That would give younger pharmacists the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the procedures, as well as to meet colleagues.

BILL RIAL (Leicestershire) agreed that the contentious issue was not that young pharmacists should be involved but whether they were allowed to vote. The solution was to keep the system whereby each branch had a specified number of votes, no matter how many people attended from that branch.

MIKE WILLIAMS (Solihull) said that if representatives had to give up their places to enable younger members to attend the meeting, this would remove the ability for mentoring and guiding them.

The motion was carried.

“Lack of leadership” claim rejected

A claim that the Society lacked leadership in promoting prescribing by pharmacists was rejected by the meeting.

PARESHKUMAR MODASIA (West Metropolitan) moved: “that this meeting deplores the lack of leadership given by the Council and Officers of the Society in furthering the role of pharmacists in prescribing and asks that urgent action be taken to expedite the legal ability of pharmacists to prescribe medicines for patients, including supply on the National Health Service, in circumstances not less favourable than those enjoyed by nurses.”

He said that the Society was dragging its feet, and pharmacists could miss the boat. Nurses could prescribe; pharmacists could not. The agenda for pharmacy had been set by the Department of Health, but the Society should be guiding the Department.

JOHN PEATTIE (West Metropolitan) seconded the motion.

GORDON DYKES (Glasgow and West of Scotland) urged the meeting to oppose the motion. Change was taking place slowly, but it was important to get things right and not to make a hash of it.

TONY CARSON (South West Metropolitan), opposing the motion said that nothing was to be gained by setting pharmacists against nurses. The issue was about access of patients to medicines, not about one profession doing it better than another.

The motion was lost.

Call for more transparency in Society’s accounting

The meeting carried a motion calling on the Society to produce more transparent accounts and make them available earlier to the membership.

ANDREW HERSOM (Hull) proposed a motion asking for “a more transparent set of accounts and accountability to monitor income and expenditure, with an enhanced and more public role for the honorary auditors, which should be provided to members not less than 20 days before the annual general meeting.”

He said that there had been concerns about the Society’s financial affairs over the past year and he was worried that the Society’s finances were not properly under control. There was a lack of transparency and detail in the accounts.

The Society should demonstrate its commitment to corporate governance by providing the accounts before the AGM so that members could have the opportunity to digest them.

The motion was seconded by JOANNA PEACHAM (Hull).

The PRESIDENT said that the Society had established an Audit Committee to scrutinise the finances of the Society, which was exactly what the motion proposed. The presentation of the accounts was in line with accepted accounting standards.

The motion was carried.

Lack of action on STV deplored

The meeting agreed that the Council’s lack of action on a 1999 BRM resolution calling for an end to the use of the single transferable vote system in the Council election was to be deplored.

Proposing a motion to that effect, ROGER MILLS (Slough) said that, as a result of a motion in 1999 a report was circulated to branches and discussed at the BRM in 2000, with overwhelming support for a change from STV to a seven-vote system. Why had the motion not been presented to the Council? The fact that the matter was to be considered by the Health Act working party as part of a comprehensive review was not adequate, because the membership had clearly requested a change.

Seconding the motion, ANTHONY COX (Birmingham) said that the meeting should send a clear message that the Council could not ignore the will of the membership.

MIKE BURDEN (Leicestershire), opposing the motion, said that the views of the BRM did not democratically express members’ wishes. Branch representatives did not have a mandate from the membership.

ALLAN ASHER (East Metropolitan) replied that, if the BRM overwhelmingly supported a motion, it could safely be assumed to be the will of the membership.

SHARON BUCKLE (Nottingham) said that it was important that the membership felt ownership of the Society. One reason for lack of involvement was that members did not feel they had a voice. She urged support for the motion.

HOWARD McNULTY (Glasgow and West of Scotland) said that in Scotland it was felt that STV militated against the Council being enriched by representatives from different parts of the country.

Responding, Mr MILLS pointed out that the interim report on the 2000 BRM resolutions had not even mentioned STV. He accepted Mr Burden’s points, but said that the BRM was the best opportunity for the will of the membership to be expressed.

The motion was carried.

Canvassing motion withdrawn The meeting withdrew from the order paper a further Slough branch motion deploring an alleged lack of action by the Council on a 2000 BRM resolution asking it to reconsider the canvassing restrictions in Council elections. It was pointed out that the Council had reconsidered its policy at its February meeting. Although the Slough branch might not be happy with the outcome, there had been no “lack of action”.

Meeting accepts non-pharmacists in senior headquarters posts

The meeting decided it had no problem with the appointment of non-pharmacists to senior positions within the Society’s headquarters and rejected a motion opposing such appointments.

GORDON DYKES (Glasgow and West of Scotland) proposed a motion deploring the increasing proportion of non-pharmacists in important positions in the Society’s administrative structure, calling on the Council to take heed of this disquiet when considering future appointments.

He said that he was not alleging that non-pharmacists were incapable of doing a good job, but he objected to the trend that seemed to have developed over recent years. The appointment of the new editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal was an example.

Seconding the motion, STEVEN KAYNE (Glasgow and West of Scotland) expressed a fear that important posts might be filled by people whose knowledge of the implications and intricacies of matters of pharmaceutical importance was limited by their lack of experience in pharmacy.

MIKE BURDEN (Leicestershire), opposing the motion, said that it was important to appoint the best person for the job. The remedy was to ensure that competent, interested and well-equipped pharmacists were available to fill administrative posts. A closed shop would demonstrate the profession’s insecurity.

NICHOLAS WOOD (Chelmsford) said that in this day and age it was important to appoint lawyers to deal with legal matters, public relations people to deal with PR, publishers to deal with publishing, and journalists for The Journal. Finding dually qualified pharmacists to fill those roles was difficult. The Society should be free to choose the best person for the job, even if that happened to be a non-pharmacist.

BRUCE RHODES (Cheltenham and Gloucester), supporting the motion, said that at one time most of the Society’s senior staff had been pharmacists, but things had gone too far the other way. The profession was in danger of being controlled by people who were employed to do the job but did not have the feeling for pharmacy that came from a background in the profession. He could not believe that it was impossible to find pharmacists capable of filling those posts. The Society needed senior staff who could speak with conviction because of their experience within the profession.

The motion was lost.

Society “should change community pharmacy image”

A motion calling on the Society to change community pharmacy’s image met with the approval of the meeting.

SUZANNE JOHNSTON (Dudley and Stourbridge) proposed that the Society should change the image of pharmacy in the high street from retailer to health professional. The image of high street retailer had been forced on pharmacists by economic necessity, inevitably spoiled their professional role. The Society should develop a strategy and provide assistance to help pharmacists implement the health professional role as soon as possible.

The motion was seconded by ANDREW HERSOM (Hull).

Speaking against the motion, MIKE BURDEN (Leicestershire) said that asking the Society to change the image of pharmacists was a nonsense. Pharmacists had to change their own image. The motion was inappropriately focused and targeted, although its sentiments were laudable.

MISS JOHNSTON replied that the idea of the motion was to give the Council a mandate. Implementation could be left entirely to the Council and its advisers.

The motion was carried.

Statutory work breaks needed

A call for pharmacists to be required to take statutory breaks away from the workplace was endorsed by the meeting

TONY PUGH (Brighton) proposed that, in view of the Working Time Directive 1997, community pharmacists should be required to take breaks, especially when working over extended hours. He said that the motion was to highlight the problem of pharmacists being required to work without adequate breaks. Anecdotal evidence suggested that pressure was brought to bear upon younger pharmacists to work long hours without complaint.

Seconding the motion, STAN WHEATLEY (Dorset) pointed out that previous editions of the Code of Ethics had contained a statement that pharmacists should not be required to work for long periods without a rest break. That guidance was missing from the new code, although it did say that pharmacists providing professional services should not work in conditions that did not enable them to comply with their key responsibilities. Furthermore, it placed responsibility on employers and owners of pharmacies not to seek to impose conditions on pharmacists that might adversely affect their ability to comply with their professional and legal duties. However, there were enormous pressures on pharmacists to work long hours without refreshment breaks, and those pressures could interfere with the ability to make a professional judgement. The new code made no reference to not eating, drinking or smoking in dispensary areas. In the interests of patient safety, he urged support for the motion.

PETER MUTTON (Northern Scottish) said that hospital, academic and industrial pharmacists were also required to work long hours. He suggested an amendment to remove the word “community” from the motion.

The amendment was accepted by the meeting.

KEN GLEDHILL (Harrogate) thought there was some degree of conflict with the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Workloads were increasing, and not only pharmacists but pharmacy staff were working under great stress. The inspectorate should monitor the situation and give advice where necessary. Hospital pharmacies did not appear to face the same problem. Pharmacists were invited to take regular breaks. The problem was in community pharmacy, particularly in multiple chains.

The motion was carried.

Request for greater priority for IT developments

The meeting agreed that the Council should give greater priority to information technology developments so that members would soon be able to access local information through websites.

BOB DUNKLEY (Leeds) proposed: “That the Council of the Society should raise the priority of the IT development to ensure that all members of the Society should be able to access local information through the website within a planned short timescale.” He said that, with websites becoming more prolific and e-commerce on the horizon, the Code of Ethics should include standards for IT.

Seconding the motion, MURRAY WINER (Leeds) said that fast communication among the membership through the use of IT was essential, but regulation was needed urgently.

NICHOLAS WOOD (Chelmsford) said that it was impractical to ask the Council to “ensure” that members could access local information. He proposed replacing the word with “encourage”.

The amendment was accepted.

MIKE BURDEN (Leicestershire) thought the Council had already complied with the motion’s aim. Also, he did not know what “local information” meant and whether it had anything to do with pharmacy.

The motion was carried.

Support for running balances in CD registers

The meeting approved a motion calling for a provision in Controlled Drugs registers in community pharmacies to allow a running balance to be kept.

The motion was proposed by TONY PUGH (Brighton) and seconded by ANGELA WOULD (Brighton).

BRUCE RHODES (Cheltenham and Gloucester) asked whether the filling in of a running balance column was to be mandatory. The motion would remove the professional discretion of pharmacists and he urged the meeting not to support it.

PENNY THURSFIELD (Isle of Man) supported the motion. In the Isle of Man running totals had been kept in registers in community pharmacies without any difficulty for five years.

ANTHONY COX (Birmingham) said that the practice had been successfully followed in hospital pharmacies for many years.

MURRAY WINER (Leeds), opposing the motion, said that a right would be taken away from pharmacists, who could be held accountable for depleted amounts of drugs due to evaporation and other factors.

The motion was carried.

Not Society’s role to update students on degree accreditation

The meeting rejected a proposal that the Society should keep pharmacy students up to date with changes in the accreditation status of their degree courses. It was felt that providing such information was the responsibility of the educational institution.

NOEL WICKS (British Pharmaceutical Students Association) proposed that the Society should immediately inform all current and prospective pharmacy students of any changes in their degree’s accreditation status. It was not right that students should arrive at universities not knowing whether their course would entitle them to join the Society’s register at the end of five years.

The PRESIDENT said that no student had ever arrived at a school of pharmacy to be told that their course had lost its accreditation. The Society had never removed degree accreditation from a school of pharmacy, although there had been instances when circumstances within the institution had led to a protracted process to complete the renewal of accreditation. It was for the universities to apprise prospective students of any change in the status of a course, because the Society had no way of knowing who prospective students were.

Seconding the motion, CATHERINE WALKER (BPSA) said that students did not appreciate the implications of accreditation. The BPSA was prepared to circulate the necessary information through its website or newsletter.

ROGER MILLS (Slough) said that it was an impossible motion to enforce.

HOWARD McNULTY (Glasgow and West of Scotland) said that a practical solution might be to supply dates of accreditation through the BPSA website.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR thought that the notification of dates of accreditation could be supplied.

Opposing the motion, KEITH WILSON (Birmingham) pointed out that the Society knew nothing about prospective students until they got to graduation. The accreditation process took some time, and informing people immediately about changes would be difficult. Every school of pharmacy would inform its students of the accreditation status once it had been decided. He added that groups of students were actually involved in the accreditation process.

Responding, Mr WICKS said that students felt they were being left out because there was not enough clarity and probity.

The motion was lost.