The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7225 p745-746
23 November 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 75K

  Public health
  Community pharmacy
  Pharmacy practice
  Drug tariff
  ADR reporting
  Parkinson's disease
  Anticholinesterases
  Medicines distribution
  Patient information
  Training
  CPD
  Onlooker

Letters to the Editor

Continuing professional development

What is being done to increase relevance to industry?

From Mr A. F. Pleuvry, MRPharmS

Mike How's letter (PJ, November 16, p713) makes sorry reading. However, I am pleased to note that Nigel Graham believes that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's practice division devotes a considerable amount of time and resource solely to industrial pharmacy. Perhaps he would like to elaborate on that statement. What is being done to support industrial pharmacists apart from the Qualified Persons' scheme? For example, what is being done to make the continuing professional development scheme more relevant to industry, or is this part of a plot to disenfranchise those of us who may be perceived as not being "proper" pharmacists? If so, then perhaps it should be confirmed quickly before the annual retention fees become payable, since most industrial pharmacists do not need to remain on the register for legal reasons.

Alex Pleuvry
Stockport, Cheshire

Help with legal and ethical issues

From Professor J. Wingfield, FRPharmS

Pharmacists seeking professional development through sound techniques for defensible decision making (PDF 90K) will have been helped by Ruth McGuire's article (PJ, 2 November, p647). Those seeking specifically to juggle complex and sometimes conflicting legal and ethical issues in decision making may also find help in the series of articles published five years ago in The Pharmaceutical Journal (1997, vol 259, p94, p129, p256, p290, p375, p548). These articles are supplemented and updated in the second edition of 'Practical exercises in pharmacy law and ethics' published earlier this year by the Pharmaceutical Press.

Joy Wingfield
Nottingham

Responsibility

From Mrs C. Cooke, MRPharmS

How can any pharmacist who remains involved in pharmacy practice, either directly or indirectly, not be continually developing their expertise? What kind of pharmacist would I be if I had stopped learning when I graduated 27 years ago?

Continuing professional development is not just about learning new skills to move into different roles. It is regularly questioning ones current knowledge and practices, updating them and addressing any shortfalls. This takes place for me at work and in my own time and I would not expect it to be any different. This is, in my view, one of the responsibilities of belonging to a profession.

Catherine Cooke
Kingston bridge, Somerset

We need special provisions to be made

From Mr G. Dilley, FRPharmS

Like Professor Edward Shellard (PJ, 9 November, p676), I have been a pharmacist for more than 60 years. I no longer work and shall not be able to participate in continuing professional development, but I want to remain a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society when-ever CPD becomes compulsory.

Being a pharmacist has enriched my life and has been useful in that part of my work that has been outside pharmacy. I enjoy reading The Pharmaceutical Journal and struggle to keep abreast of developments.

For the number of pharmacists, myself included, who find themselves in the same position as Professor Shellard regarding CPD, special provision must be made.

Gordon Dilley
Exeter

Academic achievements should be recognised

From Mr J. B. Morris, MRPharmS

I have been following, with considerable interest, the concerns expressed by many members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society who are either retired or currently working outside community or hospital pharmacy. Until my retirement I spent over 30 years working in the cosmetics industry but remained on the register.

My pharmaceutical knowledge was in constant demand and my qualification was both recognised and accepted by other professions around the commercial world.

Now it seems that I may be on a compulsory fast-track to non-membership because I have no intention or desire to comply with continuing professional development requirements. I appreciate the need for CPD but why apply it in such a blind and inflexible manner? Those who are retired or working outside pharmacy have the right to have their academic achievements recognised and I would respectfully suggest that if MRPharmS is no longer available to them then PhC would do nicely.

John Morris
Northampton

One pharmacy register should be retained

From Mr D. A. Hancox, MRPharmS

May I please clear up an apparent misunderstanding with Doreen Fine (PJ, 9 November, p676)?

I recently expressed the view that continuing professional development applied to all pharmacists and that any appraisal system had to recognise the individual nature of every pharmacist's practice (PJ, 26 October, p607).

We are therefore in agreement that different specialists will undertake different CPD. In pharmacy the CPD record of a pharmacist responsible for the provision of sterile pharmaceuticals will differ substantially from that of a pharmacist responsible for the provision of pharmacy services in a community pharmacy. Similarly, the CPD record of an academic pharmacist will differ from that of a pharmaceutical adviser to a health authority.

I also agree with her that a pharmacist whose expertise was entirely that of an industrial pharmacist should not undertake a locum in community pharmacy without he or she being able to demonstrate fitness to practise within community pharmacy.

Where we might disagree is in the need for separate registers of "practising" and "non-practising" pharmacists. To create such registers we have to define "practice" and we have to determine how a pharmacist can move from the "non-practising" register to the "practising" register.

Even if the definition of practice is restricted to one embracing community and hospital practice (and I do not believe it should be) there are problems. There may be a common core of knowledge, skill and competence for community and hospital pharmacists. However there is also knowledge, skill and competence that is specific to specialties within these areas of practice. CPD cannot be restricted to the common core.

Why not keep it simple and retain one register together with a professional responsibility for every pharmacist to undertake, and maintain a record of, CPD that is consistent with continued ability to meet his or her specific responsibilities?

By this means we would all be able to demonstrate to our professional body at any time that we are taking appropriate steps to maintain our ability to meet those responsibilities. Furthermore, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society would have a system that gave reassurance to other health professionals, the general public and the Government that all pharmacists take appropriate steps to retain their individual fitness to practise.

Where does this leave Professor Edward Shellard (PJ, 9 November, p676), Doreen Fine (a primary school teacher) and others in similar positions? Such pharmacists would remain on the register but, in the absence of any supporting CPD, they would have no evidence to support their immediate engagement in any area of pharmacy practice.

Douglas Hancox
Auckland, New Zealand

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Training)
Next Topic (Onlooker)