|
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has asked for views from the membership
about its future role. Should the Society have a regulatory role, a professional
role or both?
The majority of community pharmacists already see the Society as nothing
more than a regulatory body. There are community pharmacists who have
no interest in the Society other than as a means to earn a living through
their registration. Most have never attended a branch meeting and do not
read The Pharmaceutical Journal. I have been in community pharmacies and
seen 10 months worth of journals still in their wrappers. The only real
contact many have with the Society is when an inspector calls about once
a year and they feel the visitor is critical, hostile and unfriendly.
How is the Society doing in its professional and regulatory roles? Certainly
the Society is doing better as a regulator than it is as professional
body. However, there are criticisms of its behaviour in a regulatory capacity.
The Journal of 2 March reported a case referred to the Statutory Committee
by the Society of a pharmacist who worked while feeling unwell. He had
committed other misdemeanours which justified his referral, but how does
one quantify being unwell? There must be many people in all walks of life
who go to work when not feeling 100 per cent fit either through illness
or some self-inflicted cause. The Society does not earn respect by including
trivial charges when referring cases to the Statutory Committee. The Statutory
Committee in turn does not endear itself to members when giving mystifying
decisions occasionally in its cases. The case that comes to mind is the
“peppermint water” case. The PJ report stated that the company
involved was to be commended for its handling of the case. However, the
company had placed a preregistration trainee in a pharmacy which was not
approved for training. He was supervised by a pharmacist who had been
qualified for less than two years and who was not authorised to act as
a tutor. I would have expected the company to be criticised for its staffing
arrangements. How many of us would have got away with that? In order to
avoid discrepancies such as these there is a need to include more lay
members in the disciplinary process; this would certainly provide greater
transparency.
I am afraid that the Society has lost its way as a professional body.
Over the past few years there have been several useful medicines deregulated
but community pharmacists have been looking for a much greater flow of
available products. The speed of deregulation has been so slow that products
that have been moved from prescription only to pharmacy sale have quickly
become general sale items; community pharmacy has therefore lost any professional
edge it might have acquired. The latest move from Lambeth if a wish list
for deregulation: a dream that will take decades to materialise; a vague
list short on substance. Ibuprofen is now a GSL medicine, but where are
the other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that we may have expected?
It is six years since I bought some naproxen tablets from a non-pharmacy
supermarket in the United States, but pharmacy in the United Kingdom is
years behind. A second over-the-counter NSAID is still awaited. We should
have had pharmacy sales of naproxen and diclofenac years ago.
Some years ago we had the Pharmacy in a New Age initiative. I feel sure
that most community pharmacists have been disappointed with the results.
Meetings were organised nation-wide and enough hot air was produced to
fly Richard Branson round the world in his balloon. At the end of the
debate we were left with all talk and no action. The membership were looking
for leadership and were sadly let down.
The Pharmaceutical Journal report of the Council meeting in February 2002
is enlightening. Council members, including two past presidents, were
criticised by a fellow Council member for not agreeing with a Council
decision on fellowship designation. Surely they are entitled to express
their own views. In any democratic organisation there will be members
who do not agree with things but freedom of speech is paramount. On reading
the report I was left wondering whether Council members are clones or
clowns.
The document from the Society putting forward options for the future contained
one amazing consideration. The last paragraph of section 3.7 suggests
that membership fees charged to pharmacists may be higher if two different
bodies are required to carry out the regulatory and professional roles
in future. This may well be true, but I think the important thing is to
get matters right. Cost should should not be a consideration. The Society
has a sound branch and regional structure but its success is due to the
many members at local level who work tirelessly to ensure they succeed.
Any success is in spite of Lambeth and not because of it. The amount of
information coming down from Lambeth seems minimal.
The Society has over the years relinquished its former roles in education,
both undergraduate and postgraduate. The role it undertakes in education
is now regulatory.
One of the reasons that pharmacy is not treated respectfully by the Department
of Health is that there are too many voices speaking on its behalf: the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the National Pharmaceutical Association,
the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, the Company Chemists
Association and the newly formed Association of Independent Multiple Pharmacies
all have their say. The main problem is that on important occasions they
are often singing from different song sheets. These representative organisations
should take the opportunity presented by any reorganisation of the Society
to take the echo out of community pharmacy’s voice. It is quite easy
for the Department of Health to adopt a divide-and-rule policy when pharmacy’s
leadership is so fragmented.
Currently, membership of the Society is compulsory for community pharmacists
wishing to practise. If the Society remains a regulatory body, as I think
it should, membership will be maintained. If the Society adopts a professional
role, membership will be optional. If membership is optional, I do not
think that many pharmacists would choose to join. If the Society’s
roles are split and it is left with just a regulatory role, it may be
necessary to separate the publications arm from the main body. The Pharmaceutical
Journal and other publications are lucrative and would survive as a stand
alone unit.
In order to unify the profession, other pharmaceutical organisations should
consider their futures. It may be best if the NPA or some similar body
takes on the role of professional body for pharmacy. The PSNC, the CCA
and the AIMP could operate as subgroups of the main body. It is important
that all branches of the profession have someone looking after their interests.
Hospital pharmacists, industrial pharmacists and academics could join
the new professional body. We might then have pharmacy speaking with one
voice; the Department of Health, the public and the media would then understand
the profession’s arguments.
|
|
Malcolm Almond, from Brighouse,
West Yorkshire, is a community pharmacy locum who writes on health care,
management and personal finance
|
