The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7223 p676
9 November 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF 55K

  Academic pharmacists
  Patient packs
  Community pharmacists
  Antibiotics
  The Society
  CPD
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

Continuing professional development

What about retired pharmacists?

From Professor E. J. Shellard, FRPharmS

I would like to make a comment concerning the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists following the introduction of compulsory continuing professional development, whenever that may be. I agree with Douglas Hancox (PJ, 26 October, p607), except that provision must be made for pharmacists like myself. I qualified in 1937 and gave up employment in 1978, but I have remained a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Now approaching my 90th birthday, I shall not participate in any CPD, but I want to remain a member of the Society for two reasons: I am proud of my 65 years as a member and I enjoy reading The Journal. There must be quite a number of pharmacists like me.

Edward Shellard
Hounslow, Middlesex

Those who do not practise might leave the register

From Ms D. S. Fine, MRPharmS

I disagree with Douglas Hancox (PJ, 26 October, p607). Surely the whole purpose of continuing professional development is to recognise fitness to practise. I would expect a psychiatrist to undertake totally different CPD from a general practitioner, and I would not expect a psychiatrist to undertake a locum in general practice without meeting the required standards of general practice.

Similarly, I would not expect a pharmacist whose whole working life is spent in industry to undertake a locum in hospital or community pharmacy without meeting the required standards for these branches. At present, although I have not worked in community or hospital pharmacy for 18 years, I could legally walk into a shop or hospital tomorrow and act as a locum pharmacist. This is entirely wrong, since I cannot possibly know how such a pharmacy functions in reality, even though I have kept up to date with my theoretical knowledge. I hope that CPD will put an end to this situation.

I have watched the CPD videotape and find that the current requirements for CPD are too arbitrary. In order to be effective, there must be minimum standards to be met for CPD for hospital and community pharmacy, just as other branches will have their own standards to be met. In primary school teaching, the profession in which I have been involved for the past 18 years, there are many standards all of which must be met by new teachers to signify fitness to teach.

Also, although in my view I am not currently eligible to undertake CPD, I would willingly remain on a non-practising register, or undertake regular voluntary training in order to remain on an active register. However, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society must wake up to these issues before pharmacists like myself and Helen Levy (PJ, 19 October, p565) leave the profession.

Doreen Fine
Pinner, Middlesex

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (The Society)
Next Topic (The Journal)