| · Shipman inquiry
· Broad spectrum
· Public health
· Violence in pharmacies
· Pharmacy education
· Tablet identification
· Natural therapies
· Nasal sprays
· Dispensing
· The profession
· The Council
· The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Transparency and equity in appointments
From Miss S. Kalsi, MRPharmS
As a member of the Hertford branch, I noted with interest the announcement
of appointments to four key posts at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
(PJ, 10 July,p71), namely: head of postregistration division, head of
Secretary and Registrar’s office, head of support staff and regulation,
and head of professional leadership.
Although there is absolutely no doubt in my mind regarding the suitability
of the successful candidates for the positions, I could not recall having
seen these positions advertised in the wider press. Consequently, in
common with other branch members, I have been moved to ponder whether
there has been full transparency and equity in the appointment processes.
It would be reassuring to know that the relevant corporate governance
procedures were followed in making these appointments.
Sukhvinder Kalsi
Pinner,
Middlesex
| |
VIVIENNE MURCH, head of human resources, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
I am pleased to be able to reassure Miss Kalsi that all
the posts she cites were filled in an appropriate manner by appropriately
qualified staff.
The roles of head of professional leadership and support staff
and regulation were used as redeployment opportunities for existing
Society staff during the
recent restructuring exercise. Other roles, alongside these, were also filled
by a similar job matching exercise.
Where appropriate, roles that could not be filled through redeployment were
advertised in the PJ or other media depending on the exact nature
of the job.
The new role of head of Secretary and Registrar’s office was both internally
advertised and placed with external agencies. Applicants were then shortlisted
and interviewed. Over the past eight months other vacant head of division roles
have been internally and externally advertised as appropriate and have been
successfully recruited in a similar manner.
An individual who was previously undertaking large elements of the work in
a consultancy capacity has agreed to fill the role of head of post registration
division on a temporary basis. Should the role be permanently recruited in
the
future it will be both internally and externally advertised.
The Society considers itself fortunate in making these appointments.
An advertisement for the post of head of quality improvement can be found in
this week’s issue of the PJ. |
Two bodies operating under one roof?
From Mr C. O. Agomo, MRPharmS
I wish to congratulate the Council members for the amount of effort
they have put in in the past month to ensure that calm and progress was
restored within the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
Though I agree completely that the new draft Charter is a great improvement
when compared with the last one, and I appreciate the Council’s
humility and wisdom for seeking the opinion of members this time around,
I still have some reservations about the composition of the new Council.
Now that the proposed two-board model preferred by the Save Our Society
group members did not work, I think it will benefit the profession more
to split the roles of the Society among two bodies — a regulatory
section and a professional section — and allow the new Charter,
maybe unchanged, to apply to the regulatory section. The professional
section should have mostly pharmacists as Council members, while the
regulatory section could have up to 40 per cent lay membership on its
Council. Both bodies need to be independent, but could still share resources
and operate under the same roof. With this arrangement the profession
will still be self-regulated, after all, doctors, nurses and lawyers,
despite their two body systems, are more or less self-regulating professions.
Technicians have their own professional body, and I do think that for
the sake of fairness, pharmacists in Britain should not be denied the
right of exercising this freedom, particularly when the Society is getting
on with the regulation of technicians. At no time has this become more
important than now, when the profession is negotiating with the Government
for better status and pay, and there is also the need for pharmacists
to be able to defend themselves against litigation from the public and
employers. The present Society cannot help us here because of its dual
role.
My only fear is that if this problem is not sorted out once and for all,
it might remain a recurring decimal in the life of the profession.
Chijioke O. Agomo
London N7
Society should follow the examples of success
From Mr B. D. Allmey, MRPharmS
I graduated in 1968 and was admitted to the Register in 1969. Letters
in the PJ now about the role of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are
not dissimilar to those appearing when I was a student. The Society has
always been seen by many members as a strong regulatory body, probably
exerting far stronger discipline and taking a more proactive role than
any other health professional body. At the same time, few pharmacists
would say that the profession has been well represented in the corridors
of power — look at how the Department of Health has treated pharmacy
over recent years if you have doubts on this.
Surely the way forward is to separate the regulatory function from the
body representing the profession? How can a pharmacist see the Society
as a firm proactive inspector and policeman and at the same time as a
protector?
We should follow the examples of success — a strong “Royal
College” style representative body and a separate regulatory body.
The Royal Colleges, led by highly respected members of their profession,
are able to lobby for their profession with the support of the profession.
An example of this model would be the Royal College of General Practitioners,
which sets standards and promotes the profession while the General Medical
Council regulates the profession. To those who advocate self-regulation,
there is no conflict with this model. The regulatory body and the professional
body do not have to be the same organisation for the profession to retain
control of itself while involving the public in regulatory issues.
The proposed new Charter seems to perpetuate the old style which has
served our profession so badly.
Brian Allmey
Harrogate, North Yorkshire
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal