| · Pharmacy education
· Primary care
· Community pharmacy
· Technicians
· Acute diverticulitis
· Oxygen
· Dispensing errors
· Charitable donations
· Returned medicines
· BPC
· Blood-brain barrier
· CPD
· Overseas membership
· The register
· Retention fee
· The Society
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
CPD
Best wishes and farewell!
From Mr J. M. Beck, FRPharmS
Like most of my colleagues I need no exhortation on the benefits of
keeping up to date. I realised the benefits at the start of my career
when my father, to whom I had been apprenticed, told me what a fantastic
refresher course it had been for him to “look over my shoulder” during
my time at Chelsea.
I then spent 34 years in industry working in the area of hypertension.
Recently, I thought I would try the more formal approach suggested by
continuing professional development. I read the recently published literature,
notably Shellard et al, and then asked myself what I had learned. The
answer was that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has not the slightest
interest in either myself or hundreds of my semi-retired colleagues who
have been filling awkward gaps in the service and thus obliging many
thousands of patients.
I reflected that, for the past 10 years, I have been paying half the
full registration fee for agreeing not to work for more than a quarter
of the year. I then considered the likelihood of the Council reversing
the recent decision on registration fees and decided that the probability
is small (P>0.001). The reason for that is that during my apprenticeship,
when I said one day that something seemed to be a matter of common sense,
my father said to me: “The trouble with common sense, my boy, is
that it is misnamed. It just is not that common.” And what a useful
adage that has been to have in the back of my mind throughout my life.
Has all this added any value to my practice? The answer is yes, for I
am going to save myself the cost of retired membership next year. It
has become second nature to provide information and the benefit of my
experience in any field of which I have knowledge, be it DIY, motoring,
sailing, or even pharmacy, to anybody who seeks it. If I do not know
the answer, I am only too ready to admit it. So I will certainly not
agree to be muzzled.
Finally, what will I do now and how will it be achieved? I shall resign
from the Society at the end of the year. I imagine a simple letter with
a second class stamp will suffice.
What a useful little exercise that has been. With best wishes, and farewell!
John M. Beck
Hayling Island,
Hampshire
Urgent review of policy needed
From Mr S. Dajani, MRPharmS
The PJ editorial (25 September, p406), along with the majority of the
Council, argues that the level of costs in maintaining continuing professional
development is relevant to all regardless of hours or role and therefore
the costs to each individual member should also be the same. I disagree
because pharmacists who require many competencies would not have the same
CPD regulating costs as a part-time locum who is only dispensing within
the parameters of standard operating procedures or an overseas pharmacist
who does not even work on these shores.
To confuse CPD with competency is prioritising the means and not the ends.
CPD is a component of competency and therefore someone working part-time
would only need the minimum core requirements to provide a good quality
pharmacy service. This needs less CPD support, less monitoring and therefore
less costs than a pharmacist providing a wide array of specialist services.
The costs surrounding the four stages of CPD are extremely relevant and
should be reflected directly in a three-tier fee (non-practising, part-time/overseas
and full-time) otherwise it could be deemed that overseas and part-time
pharmacists are subsidising the full-timers.
I argue a basic competency of dispensing only requires evidential proof
of compliance with standard operating procedures and keeping up to date,
which does not warrant the hike in fees agreed by the Council majority.
Not to support the most vulnerable in our profession is a token of contempt
and disregard for those who are not well or have worked in the profession
the longest. We must look after our own as we do the public interest — I
hope The Pharmaceutical Journal supports this view at least.
Many effuse the importance of the part-time/semi-retired lobby, especially
in community pharmacy. Let us not just patronise them; we need to prove
what we say and show what we mean. I urge my Council colleagues to review
this policy urgently.
S. Dajani
Member of Council,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal