Council endorses five-year strategy for involvement
in practice research
The
Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has approved a five-year strategy
for the Society’s involvement in practice research. The strategy involves
a consolidation of current commissioned work to address research in areas
of workforce, education and ethics.
The Council made its decision at its meeting on
June 5 and 6, on the recommendation of the Society’s practice research
division.
Considering a paper prepared by the head of practice
research (Dr Sue Ambler) and the research manager (Zoe Whittington), the
Council noted that the Society’s contribution to practice research over
the past five years had been in the area of innovation, demonstrating
what pharmacists could do and trying to put pharmacy on the map. The publication
of the NHS plans had made the case for pharmacy, and what needed addressing
now was not just the “what” but also the “how”.
Among other things, the Council agreed that the
Society should continue to make appropriate contributions to projects
commissioned by the Community Pharmacy Research Consortium and to support
the core costs of the Pharmacy Practice Research Trust. In addition, it
would seek to establish similar partnerships with other representative
bodies in pharmacy to develop research in hospital and primary care.
Council procedures
The Council adopted a handbook setting out procedures
for the conduct of Council business, including revised procedures for
dealing with allegations of misconduct.
The procedures were based on the principles contained
in the second interim report of the Corporate Governance Steering Group,
published in February. The handbook would in future be adopted annually
at the Council’s June meeting.
On Mr Nathan’s motion, the Council also agreed that
the handbook should be published on the Society’s website. Mr Nathan said
that the document gave a good account of the way the Council was supposed
to conduct its business, and the membership would be reassured if they
had access to it.
Race relations
The implications for the Society of the Race Relations
Amendment Act 2001 were to be considered by the Council’s Law and Ethics
Committee, Mr Hemant Patel was told in reply to a written question.
Mr Patel had asked: “(1) What is the Society doing
about highlighting what is new about the law? (2) Where does the Society
need to take action to challenge racial discrimination and promote race
equality? (3) What is the Society doing to prepare itself for the new
legal obligations?”
In a written answer, Mr Patel was told that the
Race Relations Amendment Act 2001 fulfilled a recommendation made in the
Stephen Lawrence inquiry report to extend the scope of the Race Relations
Act 1976, which affected largely employment and goods and services, to
all public authorities. The Act had come into force on April 2. It outlawed
discrimination by public authorities and placed a positive obligation
on specified bodies in a Schedule to the Act to work towards the elimination
of all racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and
good relations between persons of different groups.
A Home Office consultation ending on May 15 had
proposed that health care regulators such as the Society and the General
Medical Council should be included in the Schedule. The Society was not
yet included and this could only be done by an Order.
The Act potentially went further in permitting the
Secretary of State to impose in Regulations specific obligations on those
listed in the Schedule.
The Act also provided for a code of practice to
be made, which was currently being prepared for consultation in the summer.
This matter would be considered initially by the
Law and Ethics Committee in July, when the areas to be addressed would
be identified, based on the preliminary work now being undertaken by the
Professional Standards Directorate.
Workforce advisory group
The Secretary and Registrar reported to the Council
that Society had approached relevant Government offices in the three home
countries for funding to support a workforce advisory group.
In England, the Department of Health had accepted
the Society’s project plan and had provided funding for a two-year programme.
Wales had also made a commitment to the programme. Discussions were continuing
in Scotland.
Infringements Committee
Sale of veterinary POMs The Council
agreed that a warning letter should be sent to a pharmacist who had allegedly
made illegal supplies of veterinary medicines. He would also be asked
to sign an undertaking that he would in future comply with the legislation.
It was reported to the Infringements Committee that
the pharmacist had allegedly sold prescription-only medicines to cat breeders
in the United Kingdom without the authority of a prescription. He had
claimed in interview that the sale had been for export, but this was allegedly
not borne out by the statements of the breeders who had purchased the
products. He had also allegedly supplied an equine growth promoter to
stables in the United States without having obtained a valid prescription.
Supply of Viagra without prescription The
Council agreed to refer to the Statutory Committee the case of a pharmacist
who had allegedly made supplies of Viagra (sildenafil) without prescription.
The Infringements Committee heard that the pharmacist had admitted giving
Viagra in small amounts to a few friends at his golf club. An analysis
of information provided by wholesalers and the Prescription Pricing Authority
suggested that supplies had been made in excess of those accounted for
by prescriptions.
Alcohol problem The Council agreed
to refer to the Statutory Committee the case of a hospital pharmacist
who was alleged to have neglected his duties when on call and who might
have an alcohol problem affecting his ability to practise.
The Infringements Committee was told that the Society’s
main concern was the pharmacist’s alleged neglect of on-call duties. The
committee heard that he had been on call overnight on February 22. He
had been telephoned at midnight because a new patient in the hospital’s
coronary care unit needed ceftazidime. Although he had said that he would
reach the hospital in 30 minutes, he had never arrived. The patient’s
drug had not been delivered until 8am.
The committee also heard that on January 5 the pharmacist
had been convicted of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol and
that he had been under investigation by his hospital pending a disciplinary
inquiry into unexplained absences, some of which allegedly appeared to
have been linked to excessive alcohol intake.
The committee believed the case was a health-related
one and noted assurances that the pharmacist was addressing his problem.
However, in the absence of a Health Committee, and because of the danger
to the public when pharmacists worked under the influence of alcohol,
the committee considered that the appropriate action was referral to the
Statutory Committee.
Medicines wrongly delivered The Council
agreed that a warning letter should be sent to a superintendent pharmacist
who had allegedly allowed a delivery of dispensed medicines — including
a Controlled Drug and other products liable to abuse — to be left unattended
at residential premises.
The Infringements Committee heard that the pharmacist’s
company had acquired a pharmacy in October, 2000, retaining the staff
employed by the previous owner. In February, a patient who regularly used
the pharmacy’s delivery service had requested a repeat prescription, notifying
the surgery in writing of a change of address. The surgery had failed
to update her record and had sent a prescription bearing her former address
to the pharmacy. The prescription was for 60 Fybogel sachets, 84 Climaval
tablets, 50 diclofenac suppositories, 28 prednisolone 2.5mg tablets, 28
prednisolone 5mg tablets, six zolmitriptan tablets, 28 amitriptyline 25mg
tablets, 28 amitriptyline 50mg tablets and 56 Sevredol 10mg tablets.
The delivery driver, who had worked at the pharmacy
for 13–14 years, had delivered the medicines to the patient’s former home.
Under an arrangement previously made with her for delivery in her absence,
he had left the medicines in an outside toilet block at the back of the
building. By the time an attempt was made to recover the medicines, the
property had been locked. The letting agents and police were informed.
Some time later the new tenant’s mother had returned a bag of medicines
containing everything but the Sevredol (morphine sulphate) and amitriptyline.
A new prescription had been requested only for the
Sevredol and amitriptyline. The returned medicines had been supplied to
the patient after the pharmacist had checked them and decided that they
had not been tampered with or inappropriately stored.
It was alleged that the superintendent pharmacist
had failed to monitor the delivery service operated by the pharmacy, had
failed to ensure the competence of staff undertaking deliveries of medicines
and/or had failed to ensure the safe delivery of a Controlled Drug and
other medicines liable to abuse.
The committee noted that the pharmacist himself
had reported the matter to the Society and had drawn attention to shortcomings
in his systems.
Promotion of medicines
It was reported to the Council that, in the light
of the collapse of resale price maintenance, the Law and Ethics Committee
had on June 5 held an urgent meeting to review sales promotion of medicines
and to consider guidance to the membership additional to that in the new
Code of Ethics and the interim guidance published in the PJ. Once
the formal minutes of the meeting were available, consideration would
be given to what, if any, further advice or action was needed.
Special general meeting
After considering a report of the special general
meeting held on June 3 (PJ, Jun 9, p775), the Council reaffirmed
the existing principles with regard to filling director level and other
senior staff posts within the Society.
Giving a report on the SGM, the SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR
said that it had been requested by two groups of members and the requests
submitted by Ashwin Tanna and Philip Walton. The meeting had been attended
by 56 members, of whom 10 (including Mr Tanna) were Council members and
14 staff members. The motion proposed by Mr Tanna was lost but the meeting
had carried a motion censuring the Council for the process used to appoint
the editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal.
Mr TANNA said that whether his motion was lost or
not was not the issue. It was a point to be made in order to bring to
the attention of the Council that there was a great deal of uneasiness
among the membership. However, it was now all water under the bridge.
The membership had made up their minds.
Mr Tanna added that after the SGM a member of the
editorial staff had taken issue with him over his reference to the low
morale of the staff. If he had offended any of the staff with that remark,
he wished to point out that he had not meant to suggest that they all
had low morale because of what had happened.
Mr Tanna went on to say that many members of staff
and Council members had been present at the meeting. He wanted it clear
that, however people voted at the meeting, they would not be victimised
as result of the debate. Council members had learnt a lesson and should
try to put the matter behind them. They did not want any witch hunts.
Dr GRAY asked what the next step was. The Council
had at least one director to appoint within a short time. Had any points
been made at the SGM with regard to methods of improving policy? Was it
more a matter of communication of the process that was the concern of
members? How would the Council move forward in order to improve the process?
The PRESIDENT* said that while some SGM participants
had expressed concern that non-pharmacists now filled several senior posts
within the Society, only the previous month the branch representatives’
meeting had rejected a motion expressing concerns about the issue. The
prevailing argument at the BRM, and also expressed at the SGM, was that
they should continue to seek to recruit the best candidate for any particular
job through open competition.
There was no need to reopen the debate, but she
wanted the Council to reaffirm the existing principle with regard to filling
director level and other staff posts. There was no hidden agenda. But,
as Dr Gray had pointed out, the Council would have to fill some gaps in
the management structure soon, and the President wanted to ensure that
there was no ambiguity about process or criteria.
For the benefit of the new members of Council, the
President asked the Secretary and Registrar to explain the process that
applied to filling senior staff positions. The aim was to secure the services
of a professional with the highest level of skills and experience in the
job that needed doing. In a modern organisation, pushing forward an ever
more complex and important agenda, it was vital that they had the right
people in the right place.
The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR, referring to the recruitment
process, said that when a job became vacant the job description was reviewed,
as was normal in any organisation. The recruitment process for a post
at the level under consideration was that the Secretary and Registrar
made arrangements for recruitment. In recent years the recruitment process
had been that recruitment specialists had been engaged for specific senior
posts.
That had been the method used in the case of the
editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal. The recruitment had been
by way of open advertisement in the national and the pharmaceutical press
as well as an executive search. Such an appointment would normally require
Council’s involvement on the panel. A sifting panel, chaired by the Vice-President,
had recommended candidates for a final panel that had Council representation,
expert representation and an expert external assessor. That panel had
made its recommendations to Council and the Council had then ratified
the decision of the panel.
Resignation of Sue Sharpe
On behalf of the Council, the PRESIDENT thanked
Sue Sharpe (director of professional standards) for her service to the
Society and wished her well in her future role as chief executive of the
Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee.
Mrs Sharpe had been with the Society for 10 years,
initially as director of legal services and subsequently director of professional
standards. All owed her a great debt for the contribution that she had
given and for her wise and sound advice to members of Council individually
and to the Council collectively. She had been the first non-pharmacist
director of legal services, and that demonstrated how, if one had the
best person for the job, the job was done well.
The changes that had taken place over the past 10
years were well-known. Mrs Sharpe had contributed in a quiet, constructive
and helpful manner much to improve the standards.
The President added that he was sure that the future
relationship between the Society and the PSNC would be constructive, co-operative,
friendly and forward-looking.
Mrs SHARPE, responding, thanked the Council and
all the chairmen of committees that she had worked for. She had tremendous
admiration for the pharmacists she had dealt with in that capacity over
the years. She concluded by saying that she admired none more than her
staff, who had given her phenomenal support.
|
