The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7236 p249-250
15 February 2003

Society summary

Answers to questions about the CPD consultation

Who does the CPD implementation committee hope to hear from in the consultation?
The committee would like the views of a representative cross-section of pharmacists and pharmacy organisations, and a good number of other stakeholders, such as other health professions, patient advocacy groups and the National Health Service.

The committee is aware that individuals and groups potentially falling in Group 2 and Group 3 are particularly concerned about the impact of mandatory CPD on their membership of the Society. The committee wants to hear from them and from the large number of pharmacists in Group 1 who will be committed to meeting the Society's CPD requirement.

Where will the line be drawn between what are referred to as Groups 2 and Group 3 in the consultation article?
This question is really about the scope of Group 2, ie, which persons should or could fall within the description "a pharmacist undertaking a pharmacy or health care job(s) for which s/he does not actually have to be a pharmacist"? The answer is anyone active in the broad science or practice of pharmacy.

The implementation committee has not provided a definition because the committee favours putting the onus on the pharmacist, with suitable guidance from the Society, to declare — and justify if challenged — a statement that he or she is "not active in pharmacy (science, practice, or say, management)". By making such a statement a pharmacist would fall within Group 3 and have the option of joining the inactive class within the register, thereby avoiding the CPD requirement.

Is it not inevitable that many industrial and academic pharmacists will choose to leave the Register?
The implementation committee believes that many industrial and academic pharmacists are highly active in their CPD efforts as a requirement of their employment and that it will not prove onerous for them to record their CPD, to meet the Society's requirements. The implementation committee and the Society's CPD team are committed to making record keeping user-friendly and genuinely useful to the pharmacist. However, the committee recognises that some pharmacists may choose to leave the Society rather than meet the CPD requirements when the regulations for mandatory CPD become effective.

Can Group 2 pharmacists opt to be on the inactive register if they choose not to carry out CPD and sign the non-practising statement?
If this were allowable for Group 2 why not for Group 1? This would be disallowed under the current proposals for CPD. A member who works in a position in which they use their knowledge of pharmacy will be expected to comply with the CPD requirements. The inactive register would be for members who have retired or do not work as a pharmacist in any way.

Why should those whose jobs have nothing to do with pharmacy, eg, accountants and landscape gardeners, be allowed to continue to have a say in the way the Society is run, while those whose jobs have a pharmacy or health care connection are to be forced to leave the Society if they do not undertake CPD?
At present all pharmacists are equal on the register, whatever their pharmacy or non-pharmacy work. Correspondence about the introduction of CPD has made it clear that retired pharmacists, and others, value their membership of the Society and wish to retain their membership. If they are to remain members of the Society what should be the benefits of membership, eg, receiving The Pharmaceutical Journal, access to the library, voting in Council elections?

One purpose of the consultation is to determine whether the membership at large think that this is reasonable. It may well be that the profession as a whole believes that pharmacists listed on the inactive register should have more or fewer benefits of membership than this.

Non-compliance with the CPD requirement is a separate issue. Any pharmacist who has trouble meeting the CPD requirements will receive support and guidance from the Society. However, if a pharmacist in Group 1 or Group 2 chooses not to send in CPD records when requested, after reasonable reminders, the Society will have no choice but to remove that person from the register. A pharmacist who is active in the broad science or practice of pharmacy cannot be offered movement into the inactive class.

Why does the CPD implementation committee think that CPD is enough for pharmacy when other health professions are setting up revalidation schemes?
The implementation committee would like to see how revalidation schemes wider than just mandatory CPD work out in other health professions. The Society is not being pressed to produce a revalidation scheme at this time, so we can take the time to reflect on the experience of other professions

Will there be any difference in what an individual needs to undertake to move from the inactive to the active register and what is required if you are already on the active register (but have no patient contact) and want to move from, say, pharmacy journalism, to hospital pharmacy?
There is commonality of the two cases in the Code of Ethics requirement to prepare oneself for practice or changed practice. In the case of the pharmacist in the inactive class, there may well be a requirement to submit an appropriate personal development plan for the move into the aspect of pharmacy concerned. In the case of the pharmacist in the active class moving to new employment, the requirements of the Code of Ethics will apply, as now.

In the case of supplementary prescribing, where a pharmacist's role as a prescriber will be recognised by the Society, the initial qualification and subsequent continuing professional development are likely to be monitored.

If you have a job where the pharmacy component is small, eg, a managerial job, who decides what records you must make that relate to pharmacy in general, ie, would you just pick an area that you were interested in or would the Society expect specific things to be covered?
It is up to the individual pharmacist. The interpretation of "pharmacy in general" will be broad. The guidance in support materials from the Society and other bodies will lead pharmacists to reflect, plan, act and self-evaluate CPD that is relevant to their work, not consciously distinguishing between pharmacy-related and other CPD. Clearly, the pharmacist in the case given will have to consider from time to time the need for a pharmacy slant to the CPD he or she is undertaking and recording.