The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7180 p2
5/12 January 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

Registration of support staff [more]
Focus on 2002 [more]

Registration of support staff

Over 80 per cent of readers who completed the survey on the registration of pharmacy support staff (PJ, 22/29 December 2001, p902) believe that there should be a regulatory system for pharmacy support staff. Moreover, about 80 per cent believe that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should take on the responsibility of ensuring the competence of pharmacy support staff (p44).

The number of replies received by the closing date for inclusion in the analysis for this week was small (just over 100) — something of a surprise since the issue has caused a great deal of concern in the past. This low response may be because pharmacists were not interested in professional matters during the Christmas and the New Year holiday. However, a hot issue does not deter correspondents to The Journal — whatever the time of year — but to date we have received not one letter about the matter.

This suggests that the vast majority of practising pharmacists agree with the consensus of the Council: there is much more to be gained from the Society developing mandatory regulation of pharmacy support staff than either doing nothing or letting another body take the responsibility (PJ, 22/29 December 2001, p895), and that the decision was long overdue.

Consultation with the profession on what approach the Society should take as well as on the proposals themselves will start this year, so it is not too late to fill in the survey and send it in. All comments received by The Journal will be forwarded to the appropriate department in the Society.

Back to Top

Focus on 2002

There is one main addition to the contents, and one change in focus, that readers will spot in this issue. Other developments in 2002 will be highlighted in later issues and will include improving the processing of original papers and articles, and the launch of a section on short practice reports.

The addition is a new feature "Agenda for 2002" (p22). Articles suitable for inclusion will primarily be designed to make the profession think about its future development, and cover issues that authors wish to have considered by the rest of the profession as well as other health professionals, politicians and National Health Service managers. By definition, to be put on the "Agenda for 2002" the topic must be fresh, or assemble ideas from a variety of sources in a new way, or offer an innovative solution to an old problem — provided the aim is to enhance the profession of pharmacy.

The second change is the refocusing of the continuing education articles and renaming the section "Continuing professional development". The idea behind this change is that CPD is a more dynamic process than merely reading an article on a clinical subject. Articles appearing in the CPD section will often give readers some guidance on how their practice might change as a result of lessons learnt from the article. The section is introduced here.

Back to Top