The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7187 p285-287
2 March 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

Letters are available in a single PDF* file (65K)

  Small multiples
  POM-to-P-to-GSL
  POM-to-P
  Community pharmacy
  Hospital pharmacy
  Careers
  Truss fitting
  C. W. Maplethorpe
  CPD
  The profession

Letters to the Editor

CPD

Unjustifiable, and divisive

From Mr P. I. Herman, MRPharmS

In view of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's intention to spend millions of pounds of its members' money directly or indirectly on continuing professional development (CPD), it is reasonable to ask whether this is desirable or justifiable, especially as there is no legal obligation upon the profession to do so at present. Indeed, because pharmacy is rarely mentioned, if at all, in the voluminous literature one continually receives about the National Health Service, pharmacists could well be left out of the proposed legislation, being non-existent as far as the Government is concerned.

Pharmacy has a long and honourable history of statutory self-regulation that could and should be a model par excellence to other professions that have failed the public. Furthermore, the profession itself has funded this regulatory role. The profession has been too diffident in extolling its virtues and should state with all due modesty that it has not had cases like Shipman, Alder Hey and Bristol Royal Infirmary. The few, albeit tragic, cases of failure, such as the "peppermint water" and Nepenthe cases, are unlikely to be avoided by a multiple choice questionnaire on emergency hormonal contraception. They are avoided by the personal professional development better known as experience and the virtues of competent dispensing that should be instilled at the outset and reinforced by the role of dispensing, a role which the Society seems to be intent on farming out to unqualified persons.

In the European Union context, it is doubtful whether CPD is legal or enforceable, as it could constitute a restraint on trade. Anecdotal evidence indicates that pharmaceuticals such as Roaccutane and antibiotics are freely, if not legally, available from pharmacies elsewhere in the EU. I am not aware that CPD is a requirement outside the United Kingdom. Can the Society refuse to register EU pharmacists? I think not. Will Commonwealth pharmacists, who are such a boon to alleviate the locum shortage, have undertaken CPD? Probably not.

Is there any evidence that retail pharmacy — and I use the term advisedly — has failed the public? Across the whole country, other than in certain rural areas from which it is absent, the profession has rendered an excellent walk-in, free health advice service and self-medication facilities at minimal or no cost to the public purse. CPD will prove yet another burden upon its hard-pressed retail sector, particularly the independent practitioners, many of whom already work extremely, perhaps dangerously, long hours, and it will encroach upon the precious few hours remaining for family and social activities.

Many pharmacists, especially those approaching retirement who could impart a lifetime of valuable experience, will simply not bother with CPD and give up registration, particularly bearing in mind the increased costs of remaining on the register. Similarly, members of the Society who principally practise in the industrial, academic, managerial and administrative aspects of the profession who assist the retail sector with the occasional locum, to mutual benefit, will also give up membership — a huge professional and financial loss.

Further, the time implications of CPD may deter members from participating in the work of local pharmaceutical committees, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, the National Pharmaceutical Association and the ever increasing committees that are now associated with community pharmacy.

The Society should resist CPD in the most robust manner. It is an unjustifiable, undesirable and divisive restraint on trade, and if it is to continue it must do so at the public expense, not as an additional burden upon the members.

P. I. Herman
London W1

Previous Topic (C. W. Maplethorpe)
Next Topic (The profession)
Send your letter to The Editor