The retention fee process for 2005: addressing members’ concerns
Pharmacists are successfully dealing with the new
requirements for registering with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
Ann Lewis, the Society’s Secretary and Registrar, considers progress This year, for the first time, members of the Society have had to make
a decision on whether they should register as practising or as non-practising
pharmacists.
Already, some 28,000 members have completed the 2005 registration process.
Some 500 members have taken advantage of advice from the Society’s
practising helpline before completing their registration.
It is true that some concerns have been raised about new aspects of registration.
Some members have made it clear that they are considering the impact
of the new requirements of registration on their work as pharmacists
and on their continued membership of the Society.
A fee structure to support effective leadership and development
The Society’s financial
future depends on a secure income stream and a realistic fee
structure, says
the Treasurer, John Jolley
A substantial increase in the Society’s
expenditure is necessary if it is to fulfil its roles both in the
new regulatory framework
and in effective development and leadership for the profession.
No longer can we expect the surplus generated by Pharmaceutical
Press
publications to subsidise these costs to the extent that it has
done in the past. It is for this reason that we have decided to
apply
a substantial increase in retention fee for 2005. We have not made
this decision lightly and are reviewing all costs over the next
five years to ensure the continued financial viability of the Society
and underpin effective development and leadership of the profession.
We are currently in the early stages of a five-year financial strategy
and while we believe that the fee increase is realistic to maintain
the Society, we will be increasingly dependent on fee income to
support our activities.
We will keep retention fees increases as low as possible but have
to ensure that income from whatever source is sufficient to cover
essential expenditure. Only by the efficient management of the
Society’s
funds and the effective use of resources will we ensure that we
deliver the best value in leadership and regulation of our profession.
Help with CPD
I understand that some pharmacists — particularly older members — may
initially be uncomfortable with the requirements of the new register
and with continuing professional development. The Society is committed
to helping members acclimatise to this and our CPD facilitators
are working to this end through the branch network. We are addressing
pharmacists’ needs through tailored presentations. I, for
one, am looking forward to running a session for “mature” pharmacists
in Liverpool next month. |
Importance of CPD
All practising members who wish to continue working — whether they
work part-time or full-time and whatever their age group — will
have to come to terms with the requirements for continuing professional
development. Some members have expressed their disagreement with aspects
of the Society’s CPD framework. However, the importance to the
profession of CPD cannot be overestimated and it is vital, therefore,
to understand the principles underlying the introduction and implementation
of CPD for pharmacists.
Members may be aware that the decision by the Council to introduce mandatory
CPD was based on the outcome of a consultation with the profession as
part of the Pharmacy in a New Age strategy in 1996. CPD was, and still
is, a profession-led initiative.
CPD is now also a Government requirement which arose from the Kennedy
report into events at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. The Government is
still in the process of making CPD a legal obligation for the pharmacy
profession. But the willingness of the profession to embrace CPD is in
no doubt, confirmed as it was by a further consultation with the membership
in March 2003.
That consultation generated one of the largest ever responses from the
profession, of whom a clear majority agreed that there should be:
· Division of the membership register into practising and non-practising
sections
· A requirement for non-practising pharmacists to refrain from practice
· A requirement for practising pharmacists to undertake CPD
The principle underlying the new registration requirements is clear
and simple — the protection of the public. All practising members
seeking registration this year are required to commit to providing evidence
of having successfully undertaken CPD. For many, this is not new, except
that a record of CPD will have to be submitted to the Society for review.
After three to five years, the Society will review evidence of CPD from
all practising members in order to confirm their eligibility to practise.
The CPD that a member needs to undertake has to be relevant to his or
her occupation and does not have to include clinical practice if this
is not part of a pharmacist’s work.
The CPD framework adopted by the Society takes the need for relevance
to occupation into account and has been designed for use by practising
members whatever their occupation or sphere of pharmacy activity. So,
pharmacists working in industry, academia or government should all be
able to maintain their CPD records using the Society’s format.
Where a member has to record CPD for the benefit of more than one organisation,
it may not be necessary to keep duplicate sets
of CPD records if the information can be presented in a way that matches
the Society’s requirements.
Non-practising members
Members who responded to the Society’s 2003 consultation on CPD
agreed with
the principle that pharmacists who have retired or have taken a career
break should
be able to remain members of the Society and call themselves pharmacists.
The Council agreed and the introduction of the “non-practising” category
of membership is a direct result.
Non-practising members are not required to undertake CPD and it is therefore
not possible for the Society to state with any certainty that a non-practising
member maintains his or her professional competence. This is the reason
why the Society now requires non-practising members to refrain from engaging
in practice and to sign a declaration to that effect.
This requirement has created concerns among some members, particularly
some who are in semi-retirement. A number of pharmacists who have retired
wish to continue making a contribution to society by giving advice in
a personal capacity. In such a case, the distinction between practising
and non-practising roles may not be clear and careful consideration will
be necessary to ensure that a non-practising member does not stray into
practising territory. Pharmacists should consider whether the role is
effectively a continuation of practice, in which case their professional
responsibility to the Society and to the public requires that they undertake
CPD. Returning to practice
Another concern that has been expressed by members is that it should
be possible for pharmacists on the non-practising register to return
to practising membership of the Society.
It is anticipated that pharmacists who have been non-practising for
up to one year will be able to return to practice on the basis that
they
have assured themselves of their own competence. But after a year or
more out of practice, pharmacists are likely to need to complete a
personal development plan relevant to the length of time they have
been out of
practice and the work that they intend to undertake.
Although it is not possible to be definitive, for many returnees, the
personal development plan is likely to include a short period of mentored
practice in an appropriate setting. Revalidation
In future, it is likely that practising pharmacists — like other
health professionals — will need to undergo revalidation to demonstrate
that they remain competent and fit to practise.
Plans for the revalidation of doctors have been put on hold following
a Department of Health announcement in December of a review of the General
Medical Council’s proposals for the revalidation of doctors. The
decision was triggered by Dame Janet Smith’s comments in the fifth
Shipman Inquiry report, in which she voiced concern that the latest GMC
proposals for the revalidation of doctors did not adequately cover fitness
to practise. This view is bound to have an impact on the shape of revalidation
for all health professionals. A commitment to competence
With this background, it is important for
all members to realise that the commitment of the profession to demonstrating
the maintenance of individual competence far outweighs the small additional
effort involved in recording our CPD. The Society retains a network of facilitators who are working with branches
to support the introduction of CPD. Contact your branch for details of
meetings with a CPD focus
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal