PJ Online | The Society: February 2002 Council meeting

Home > PJ > The Society / Daily News | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7186 p261-263
23 February 2002

February Council meeting

Warm welcome for "Spoonful" report

Main points

CPD The Society is to roll out its new continuing professional development framework to 5,000 pharmacists

Information The Society's information service is refocusing to help address members' future needs

Modernisation The Council has identified a need to give pharmacists a clear understanding of the Society's modernisation programme

Audit Commission The Council has warmly welcomed the Audit Commission report, "A spoonful of sugar"

Fellowship The Council is to seek a reduction from 20 years to 12 years the minimum length of membership of the Society before a member can be considered for designation as a fellow

At its meeting on 5 and 6 February, the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society warmly welcomed the publication of the Audit Commission report, "A spoonful of sugar: medicines management in NHS hospitals" (PJ, 22/29 December 2001, p873). The Council agreed to hold a full discussion on it at its April meeting, when Nick Mapstone, one of the authors of the report, would give a presentation.

HELEN REMINGTON said that it would be inappropriate to let the item pass without saying how extremely important the report was to the hospital service. It was positive in terms of the contribution of pharmacists in the hospital sector and would have a profound effect in the hospital service. It would put pharmacy in hospital practice clearly as a clinical profession joining the other clinical directorates within boards. It was moving medicines management to the top of the agenda.

Mrs Remington expressed the hope that Mr Mapstone would not confine his remarks to the report's two recommendations that were within the Society's remit. She said that she had already prepared a paper for her board on the report and she had explained the Society's responsibilities. It was important that the Society worked with the office of the chief pharmacist [for England] to achieve some of the things that were in the document. The report could gather dust if the Society did not do what was necessary.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR, agreeing with Mrs Remington, said that a group within the office was examining the report for implications for the Society beyond those specified. In doing that they would be talking to the chief pharmacist's office. The office would be pleased to hear of any specific issues that Council members wanted to have taken into account. They would be taken into account in a report back to the Council in April. But the matter was being actively addressed. The Society had already begun to action one of the recommendations regarding support staff.

SULTAN DAJANI expressed concern that, while the Council waited for its April meeting, other worlds were moving. The Society should be more active and see more production in process.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR pointed out that the office was already working to produce a proper and robust support. The report was being taken seriously, and much work was going on. To have a meaningful discussion about the document they needed to have done work beforehand and to produce the work properly.

BEVERLEY PARKIN (director of public affairs) said the Society had worked with the Audit Commission in the run-up to the report's launch. But the launch was not the issue. The issues was the long-term work on which the Society was engaged.

DAVID PRUCE (professional development fellow) said that to do justice to the report the Society needed to pick it apart and take forward many of the long-term issues such as automation and recruitment and getting pharmacy as a properly recognised clinical directorate. Some people already had that status on the back of the report. Most matters in the report were long-term issues that would take more than a couple of months' work to deal with if they were to be properly delivered.

PETER CURPHEY said that the Council should consider the implications of this brilliant report for the status of pharmacists as a whole. They should not miss the opportunity offered by the fact that the majority of pharmacists, many of them as clinically competent as hospital pharmacists, worked in the community. They should always talk about pharmacy as a profession.

Mr Curphey hoped that community pharmacists were also delighted that hospital pharmacists would be properly recognised. That was what community pharmacists wanted as well — to be properly recognised. He hoped that pharmacists would be encouraged to think about pharmacy as the profession of pharmacy.

ALISON EWING said that the report had been phenomenally useful to her. As a result of it she had benefited because she had become a member of the clinical directors' management board at her hospital. She thanked the editor of The Journal, which had been an important means for promoting the report (PJ, 22/29 December 2001, p873). It had also picked up on a letter written by Professor Tom Walley [professor of clinical pharmacology, Prescribing Research Group, University of Liverpool], to The Times after the report's launch saying how useful pharmacists could be in helping prevent medication errors, which was obviously a big part in the report. As result, there had a two-page feature in The Journal (PJ, 2 February, pp133–34).

The report had brought out an important point with regard to communication across the primary/secondary care interface. The report was long-term work that had to be kept in the public domain. The momentum had to be kept going.

Attendance Those present at the meeting, which was held on 5 and 6 February, were the President (Marshall Davies), the Vice-President (Dr Gillian Hawksworth), the Treasurer (David Allen), Dr Gordon Appelbe, Hassan Argomandkhah, Andrew Burr, Peter Curphey, Sultan Dajani, Wally Dove, Digby Emson, Dr John Evans, Alison Ewing, Christine Glover, Sally Greensmith, Patricia Hoare, Alan Nathan, Hemant Patel, Kirit Patel, Helen Remington, Linda Stone, Ashwin Tanna and the Secretary and Registrar (Ann Lewis). Also present was the chairman of the Welsh Executive (Andrea Robinson).

Apologies for absence were received from Dr Phillida Entwistle, Dr Nicola Gray, Professor Michael Schofield and Alison Strath (chairman of the Society's Scottish Executive).

Present by invitation were Stephen DuBois (Somerset branch), Heather Gill (Wirral branch), Pauline Heath (West Metropolitan branch), Paul McGorry (Yorkshire region) and Rachel Smith (Chesterfield branch).

Dinner guests Among the guests of the Council at dinner on 5 February were Sir Richard Sykes (chairman, GlaxoSmithKline), Dr Philip Brown (executive chairman, PJB Publications Ltd), Professor Graham Buckton (head of pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, University of London), Professor William Dawson (managing director, Bionet Ltd), Professor Stephen Denyer (professor and head of school, University of Brighton), (Professor Sir Colin Dollery, professor emeritus and former dean of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, University of London), Dr Declan Doogan (senior vice-president, Pfizer Ltd), Professor Sandy Florence (dean, School of Pharmacy, University of London), Geoff Frew (managing editor, Pharmaceutical Times), Professor Alasdair Geddes (professor, University of Birmingham medical school), Sir Graham Hart (chairman, Pharmacy Practice Research Trust), Sir Gordon Hourston (member, Pharmacy Practice Research Trust), Professor Trevor Jones (director general, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry), Dr Keith Jones (chief executive, Medicines Control Agency), Vincent Lawton (managing director, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), Dr Robert Maxwell (trustee, Pharmacy Practice Research Trust), Jane Nicholson (regulatory affairs adviser, Bristol-Myers Squibb), Professor Sir Denis Pereira Gray (chairman, Academy of Medical Royal Colleges), Dr Chris Poll (head of pharmacology unit, Novartis Research Centre), Professor Malcolm Rowland (vice-president, International Pharmaceutical Federation), Lord Newton of Braintree (vice-chairman, All Party Pharmacy Group, and Parliamentary adviser to the Society), Professor Rory Shaw (chairman, National Patient Safety Agency), Dr Jim Smith (chief pharmacist, Department of Health), Professor John Stenlake (emeritus professor, University of Strathclyde), Professor Howard Stevens (Pfizer professor of exploratory drug delivery, University of Strathclyde), Chris Tovey (director of commercial operations, GlaxoSmithKline).

Age limits

The introduction of age limits for Council members and auditors could be considered by the Modernisation Steering Group, the PRESIDENT told the Council.

The matter of age limits was raised by CHRISTINE GLOVER following formal notification to the Council of the names of the Council members and auditors who would retire in 2002. Mrs Glover asked whether an age limit had been dealt with in the arrangements for governance.

The PRESIDENT said that he was not aware that the corporate governance group was looking at that matter.

LINDA STONE replied that age limits had not been looked at since she had been chairman of the group. She added that an age of 70 years seemed to be the cut-off point so far as the Department of Health was concerned regarding appointing lay members. It might be reasonable to look at that.

The PRESIDENT said that over the next few months the Modernisation Steering Group would look at the proposals for the future make-up of the Council. Terms of service and age limits might come into those deliberations. The group could also consider the auditors as part of the totality.

Membership of Panel of Fellows

The PRESIDENT reported to the Council that Mr Ron Wing was to retire from the Society's Panel of Fellows in May after 15 years as a member and 12 as chairman.

An advertisement in The Pharmaceutical Journal in the near future would invite applications from fellows of the Society to fill the vacancy on the panel. A selection panel, made up of the officers of the Society, together with a Privy Council nominee (currently Dr Evans) would be charged with selecting a new member of the panel, and subsequently to determine a new chairman. The selection panel's recommendations would be brought forward to the Council.

PETER CURPHEY asked whether it was appropriate for a Privy Council nominee to be involved in the selection of the Panel of Fellows.

The SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR said that it was reasonable to have an external view in the selection process.

LINDA STONE said that the Council had used Privy Council nominees in appointments to Council committees. Whether it was called quality assurance or probity or governance did not matter, but having made that decision for other appointments it would be inappropriate to make a different decision in the present case.

HEMANT PATEL said that he supported Mr Curphey, who was merely asking the officers to reconsider the matter.

WALLY DOVE suggested taking the matter to a vote. He believed that the Council tended not to have votes when it should do so.

HASSAN ARGOMANDKHAH felt it unfortunate that the name of Dr Evans had been mentioned. He was anxious that Dr Evans should not take the matter personally.

Dr JOHN EVANS said that he did not take the matter personally. He wanted to make it clear that he was not likely to know many of the people put forward. His contribution, if the Council wanted it, would be more to the process than to the people.

The PRESIDENT felt that was very helpful. He then took a vote on whether the selection panel should include a Privy Council nominee.

A majority of those present were in favour of including a Privy Council nominee. Dr Evans abstained from voting.

Fellowship designation

Council briefs

The right medicine The Council noted that arrangements were being made for the chief pharmacist for Scotland, Bill Scott, to address the Council on the strategy for pharmaceutical care in Scotland in the near future. The document, "The right medicine", had been launched the previous week and copies had been circulated to Council members. The paper's aims and objectives were similar to the plan for England. There were differences in practice but fundamentally the basic policy was similar.

Modernisation agenda Professor Paul Corrigan, special adviser to the Secretary of State for Health on the reform of public services, gave a presentation to the Council on the Government's modernisation agenda. This was followed by a dialogue in which Council members put the profession's point of view to Professor Corrigan.

New registrants' fees Answering a question from Helen Remington, the Secretary and Registrar said that the Society had been in discussion with the Privy Council on the proposal that new registrants should pay a lower fee rather than a full years' fee. She had every confidence that they would be able to agree by correspondence to charge a lesser fee for new registrants for this year. She believed that the reduced fee could be applied within the current Byelaws, which referred to full fee "or such other amount as shall be agreed by the Privy Council". If that were not the case, then a new Byelaw would be brought before the Council.

Council members' locum expenses Answering a question from Ashwin Tanna, the Secretary and Registrar said that she still awaited advice from the Department of Health that would allow the Council to proceed to consider a motion from Mr Tanna concerned with the reimbursement of locum fees paid by Council members while away from work on Council business (PJ, 22/29 December 2001, p898). She would continue to pursue the matter with the Department and would also take independent advice on the issue.

The Council agreed to seek an amendment to the Byelaws to reduce from 20 years to 12 years the minimum length of membership of the Society before a member can be considered for designation as a fellow by the Panel of Fellows. The amendment would also allow a member to be designated as a fellow for an outstanding contribution to the advancement of pharmaceutical care. Currently, fellowship by designation is open only to members who have made an outstanding original contribution to the advancement of pharmaceutical knowledge or have attained distinction in the science, practice, profession or history of pharmacy.

Mr CURPHEY advised the Council that he would be writing to the Council in his personal capacity to object to the proposal. He did not think that it was in the interests of the profession.

Mr ARGOMANDKHAH asked how Mr Curphey's statement fitted with the code of conduct and corporate responsibility for members of Council? Once the Council had made a decision collectively its members were supposed to support it fully under the new code of conduct. If one decided to do one's own thing that was completely against the code of conduct that members of Council had signed up to.

The PRESIDENT replied that, under the code of conduct, members of Council were expected to support the policy of the Council. Having expressed the policy, they could then explain any disagreement with it. The governance rules permitted people to express dissent, but the dissent was expressed having put forward Council's policy and the particular reasons why they found Council's policy unacceptable.

Mr HEMANT PATEL said that he had the same anxieties as Mr Curphey. He wished that to be minuted.

Mr BURR expressed concern that it was undermining the Council for two Past Presidents to take that view. He found it quite unacceptable. He felt compelled to reinforce his own perspective.

The PRESIDENT said that he would not reopen the debate. Highlighting dissent did not serve the cause of the Society and Council as a whole.