The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7224 p712
16 November 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 65K

  Statins
  BNF
  Medicines in use
  CPD
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

Continuing professional development (CPD)

Videotape is one-sided

From Mr P. Robinson, MRPharmS

I disagree with some correspondents about the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's continuing professional development videotape. None of the participants in the video seemed to mind that CPD is being forced upon them in their leisure time. They appear to enjoy such an intrusion. What disturbs me most is that they seem happy to see CPD forced upon other people.

The suggestion is made that CPD was voted for by the membership when it responded to the first New Age consultation document. I was under the impression that responses to that document simply contributed to a forum of opinion. There was no suggestion at the time, or since, that some kind of vote had been taking place. In any case, the response was so small that any result was insignificant.

No referendum has ever taken place on the introduction of CPD and the membership as a whole has never had any opportunity to reject it.

All the pharmacist contributions to the video presentation were in favour of compulsory CPD. What a surprise! One hundred per cent approval from them and a few cheesy smiles from the presenter did nothing to assuage my resentment.

The Society has produced a videotape that is altogether one-sided and excludes the voice of objectors.

Peter Robinson
Leeds

There are many applications of a pharmaceutical qualification

From Mrs S. C. Macdonald, MRPharmS

I have not dispensed a single medicine since the day I completed my preregistration training 18 years ago. Does that make me a non-practising pharmacist? I do not think so. Having enjoyed a career as an industrial pharmacist before becoming a freelance medical writer I have used my pharmaceutical training every day of my working life.

Like Doreen Fine (PJ, 9 November, p676) I realise that it would be totally unacceptable (and a downright liability) for me to dispense medicines from a community or hospital pharmacy without further training. Even so, I would strongly object to being described as a "non-practising pharmacist". The use of such a term would deny the many applications of a pharmacy qualification beyond the dispensary. May I therefore suggest that the term "non-dispensing pharmacist" be used as the title of any register of pharmacists for whom standard continuing professional development requirements are inappropriate? It will be essential to ensure that the CPD requirements of such a register are flexible, relevant to the individual and in proportion to the number of hours worked.

I am proud to be a pharmacist and would be devastated to have to leave the profession because I do not fit a standard mould.

Susan Macdonald
Nottingham

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Medicines in use)
Next Topic (The Society)