The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7189 p360-364
16 March 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

Letters are available in a single PDF* file (80K)

  CPD
  Baddy chemists
  Pharmacist prescribing
  MMR vaccination
  NHS
  Pharmacogenomics
  The Industry
  MDS
  Packaging
  PSNC elections
  MEP Guide
  BPC

Letters to the Editor

CPD (4 letters)

A responsibility, not a burden

From A. J. Marshall, MRPharmS

What is it that the older generation of pharmacists have against ensuring a high standard within the profession? I read with disbelief the letter from P. I. Herman (PJ, 2 March, p287) regarding the subject of continuing professional development.

It is not a burden; it is a responsibility. If pharmacists wish to be competent dispensers, all very well and good, but they do not need a degree in pharmacy to do it. Accurately dispensing tablets, creams, suppositories etc, is not a difficult job, but the professional input to ensure correct doses and to avoid interactions with other drugs is.

Pharmacy is not about dispensing accurately. If it were, we could have been replaced by machines many years ago. Pharmacy is about ensuring safe use and supply of medicines. I do not like dispensing myself and am more than happy to let somebody else do this onerous task for me so that I can do what I trained for: to provide the public with good advice and ensure safe supply of medicines. This does not mean I have to dispense each item personally. However I do believe I need to supervise the process and assess each and every prescription.

I accept that experience has great value but I believe that the public have a right to expect that our profession knows what it is doing. How can pharmacists expect to do their jobs without CPD? Surely they read The Journal, or manufacturers' information when a new drug is launched, or the British National Formulary when they come across a product they do not recognise. All of this is CPD, so, despite what some pharmacists appear to think, it is no great burden simply to jot down a quick note of this and keep it in an envelope in case they are asked to prove it.

I do wish people would stop whingeing about CPD and just accept that, as a profession, to do our jobs properly we have to undertake CPD. Also, all this threatening of the "older" pharmacists "not bothering with CPD" and leaving, is really no threat at all. If they are not prepared to keep their knowledge base up to date then the profession can, and should, do without them. This will ensure that those of us who take our professional role seriously (regardless of age) and wish to ensure the public get the level of competence in our professional knowledge they have a right to expect, will be in greater demand and will be able to earn a more professional wage.

A. Marshall
Penkridge, Stafford

CPD is what members want

From Mr A. Nathan, FRPharmS

I have read P. I. Herman's letter (PJ, 2 March, p287), but must disagree totally with his sentiments. He seems to think that mandatory continuing professional development is being introduced on a whim of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society as just another stick with which to beat members.

However, CPD is what members have said that they want. In the original Pharmacy in a New Age consultation more than three-quarters of respondents gave mandatory continuing education (as it was known then) as their first priority for the future of the profession. This view was endorsed in a consultation specifically on CPD a year ago. Even if the Society was not introducing it on its own initiative, the Government would be requiring it to do so, as it is currently for all health professions.

Mr Herman considers CPD as a restraint on trade and not enforceable under European Union law. I cannot see that an action to oppose a measure introduced to improve safety — which is ultimately what CPD is meant to do — and therefore in the public interest, would be looked on with much favour by any court, British or European.

Mr Herman seems to think that CPD is an imposition. I would have thought that any self-respecting professional would consider that keeping their knowledge up to date and maintaining their competence was a personal professional obligation. They should already be doing it, not complaining that they should not be made to.

Alan Nathan
London N21

Time the Society faced reality?

From P. N. Olswang, MRPharmS

I write in full support of P. I. Herman (PJ, 2 March, p287). Have the "brains" behind continuing professional development really thought it out? Do they realise the dramatic fall that will occur in the number of members at present doing locum work? Do they not know that there is already a shortage of pharmacists in both hospital and general practice? Do they not see the devastation it will cause to the profession and that the consequent fall in the number of pharmacies will mean hardship for the general public?

Kirsty Newton (PJ, 2 March, p287) describes the traumas of working as a newly qualified pharmacist in a community pharmacy. I and many other ex-proprietors, left community pharmacy for these very reasons. If we are forced into CPD, we will simply opt out.

It is time the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and its officers faced reality.

P. N. Olswang
Salford, Lancashire

Resigned despair

From Mr C. Payne, MRPharmS

I read with resigned despair the latest news (PJ, 16 February, p223) from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society concerning continuing professional development, "Society to roll out new CPD framework to 5,000 pharmacies". Will the unfortunate pharmacists invited to participate in this exercise have the option to decline, and will those who participate be paid for the time and work involved?

Conrad Payne
Haddenham, Cambridgeshire

Next Topic (Baddy chemists)
Send your letter to The Editor