The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 271 No 7259 p119-120
26 July 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 100K

  New contract
  Patient information
  Packaging
  Drug administration
  Research governance
  CPD
  The President
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

CPD

If you don't record it, it didn't happen

From Mr K. S. Donlon, MRPharmS

As pharmacists we develop skills and gain knowledge on a daily basis — why then should we have to write about it? There is a simple philosophy for those struggling with continuing professional development — if you do not record it, it did not happen.

You must realise this in its simplest form. Once you have learnt something, record it. If an opportunity passes you by then make sure you are ready for the next one. Do it once a week. Once you are on a roll it becomes second nature and suddenly you are making time for yourself to learn.

Do not be in any doubt that unproven CPD will see you in the dock trying to explain why you were too busy to be professional.

Kieron Donlon
Wigan, Lancashire

Unnecessarily worried

From Mr B. Shooter, MRPharmS

It seems that Dr Norman Harris is unnecessarily worried about the bureaucracy of continuing professional development (PJ, 12 July, p48). In his letter, he outlines his current activities, which clearly fulfil much more than the minimum CPD commitment. Surely, his letter is all that is required as part of his CPD portfolio.

Barry Shooter
Romford, Essex

Can we have factual guidance?

From Ms A. Farrelly, MRPharmS

would think that most pharmacists would agree that completing continuing education courses should be followed by applying this knowledge to practice.

However, most pharmacists have all too little free time and the prospect of reams of paper or hours spent on expensive internet connections discourages all but the academics. Can we have some factual guidance with examples as to the requirements before we all resign?

Ann Farrelly
Wallington, Surrey

Society should trust the professionalism of its members

From Mr S. R. Axon, FRPharmS

The reply from Robert Dewdney to David Shenton (PJ, 5 July, p13) illustrates the problem of inflexible rules and suggests that the "non-practising" pharmacist may well be better leaving the register completely.

Having practised for 30 years in a non-clinical capacity, like Mr Shenton, I recognise my professional limitations and would never give advice beyond my competency but my experience of both general practitioners and pharmacists is that they certainly read up on their own afflictions. As a member of a group of patients with heart disease no doubt Mr Shenton has read widely on his condition and is probably better qualified to speak to fellow patients on this than many practising pharmacists with up-to-date continuing professional development logbooks. In addition, pharmacists speaking from a standpoint of knowledge to such groups can only enhance the public esteem in which the profession is held.

In its determination to reduce everything to a set of intractable rules for Lambeth to administer, rather than to trust the professionalism of its members, Dr Dewdney confirms that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society proposals on CPD will prohibit non-practising pharmacists from offering advice in any circumstances. Is this really what the consultation supported or is it a convenient Society interpretation of that consultation?

As to the final question in Mr Shenton's letter — whether this is in the public interest — it seems to me that the Society's blanket prohibition of those on the inactive register giving voluntary health care advice is only serving this if the Society really believes that they will be so reckless and unprofessional as to speak on matters beyond their competence. Is this what the Society regards as being a modern regulator?

If non-practising pharmacists resigned from the register they would be freed from the petty discipline of the Society and restore to themselves the freedom to enter into discussions and offer opinion upon things that have interested them throughout their professional life. Against this the main advantages of remaining on the inactive register (post CPD) seem to be the professional status of calling oneself a pharmacist and receiving the PJ. When reading the letters pages, at times, the latter does nothing for my blood pressure.

Stephen Axon
Amersham, Buckinghamshire

Will overseas credits be acceptable?

From Dr J. Landau, MRPharmS

In my view, if one's name is on the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists, one should fulfil the continuing professional development requirements whether actively in practice or not. It is as simple as it sounds. This way, we can all retain our appropriate title and full privileges. In turn, we should attempt to keep up to date especially if we are dispensing advice to friends, as has been said (PJ, 19 April, p548).

I have retained my name on the British register since qualifying at Bristol in 1960. As a full-time university faculty member at a college of pharmacy in New York, I am not required to be on the New York register but reinstatement is difficult. I therefore choose to maintain registration and fulfil the required hours of continued education (some of which are allowed by correspondence).

I do not believe that the plight of overseas members has been discussed. Will CPD credits be accepted from overseas?

Janet Landau
Associate Professor in Clinical Pharmacy
Long Island University,
New York

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Research governance)
Next Topic (The President)