The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 274 No 7336 p191
12 February 2005

Society summary

This is not change for change’s sake but preparing the profession to make its mark on the future

Nicholas Wood, President of the Society tackles the concerns of members so forcibly expressed in letters to The Journal

Few pharmacists can have failed to notice the concerns and anxieties that have been expressed about the Society’s new registration requirements and about the impact of the recent increase in retention fees.

Such worries have not gone unnoticed by the Council and, as President, I was anxious that we should use the February meeting of the Council to look again at some of the issues that are causing so much uncertainty among pharmacists.

Registrations to date

The Council was pleased to be informed that most members had already renewed their registration.* About 2,000, mostly from the former “retired” category of pharmacists, have so far chosen to leave the register completely compared with some 400 in 2004. While this is a larger number than we might wish, it is not as much as some feared and it should not create significant adverse impact on the register.

A number of pharmacists who chose to stay on the register but wished to be “non-practising” have expressed concern about the level of the new fee — £46 for 2005. The decision to increase the overall retention fee was a result of the new financial strategy to secure the Society’s income stream and safeguard the future. When we considered the level of fees for 2005, we had originally decided that the non-practising fee should be one third of the practising fee. We were, however, mindful that some non-practising pharmacists had been used to a much lower fee, less, in fact than it costs to provide The Pharmaceutical Journal. Therefore, with these members in mind, we had originally decided to phase in the increase over three years.

Without compromising this strategy, at its meeting last week, the Council reconsidered the issue of the level of the non-practising fee. In the light of the concerns that have been voiced, the Council has now agreed to review its policy on the level of the non-practising fee. In agreeing to review this previous policy, we particularly want to encourage pharmacists who are not practising to stay on the non-practising register, which means that they can continue to be called pharmacists and, where applicable, continue to be designated as fellows.

Objections to registration declaration

The Council also considered some of the other linked issues raised in letters in The Journal. Some members have said that they must leave the register because they object to the wording of the “non-practising” declaration, which they believe diminishes their professionalism or calls their judgement into question.

However, definitions of “practising” and “non-practising” are currently incorporated in the Society’s new byelaws and will be defined in law through the forthcoming pharmacy Order. The Order will be subject to public consultation, which will give members another opportunity to express their views and concerns about the wording of the declaration. It is vitally important that members should share their views and opinions.

While recognising that there can be no compromise where the protection of the public is concerned, the Council has agreed that the Society’s response to the Section 60 pharmacy Order consultation will take on board members’ concerns about the wording of the declaration.

The declarations are important because they tell the public that any pharmacist who is practising, whether that means providing advice or services, paid or unpaid, does so with evidence to support his or her competence. In fact, the modern context actually requires health professionals to exercise more professional judgement by considering the nature of practice and agreeing to withdraw from practice if they cannot demonstrate that they are competent.

Requirement for CPD just the beginning

This brings me to the issue of continuing professional development and the requirement for all practising pharmacists to undertake CPD. The new requirement is linked to the need to ensure that health professionals — trusted as they are by the public — are fit and competent to practise in their chosen field.

The next major step that will undoubtedly be required of us will be revalidation, where health professionals have to demonstrate their competence on a regular basis throughout their careers. That requirement can only be developed if CPD is embedded in the culture of a profession. The General Medical Council was to have introduced revalidation for doctors this April but the Government has decided that its proposals were not robust enough and has convened a review, led by the Chief Medical Officer, that will have major impact for all health professionals.

All of this points to a great deal of change for all health professions and the way that they are regulated. Change is rarely comfortable and I can understand the feelings that are being expressed at this time. But the profession is far-sighted enough to have shown, in the 2003 consultation, solid support for CPD as a requirement for all practising pharmacists backed by a practising/non-practising register.

Support for members

The change we are experiencing is a long-term process. The Council and Society’s staff are working hard to take our members through it with information and support, and we really are making a great effort to respond to members’ concerns.

We have issued a leaflet (PDF 580K) to guide members on the category of their registration.

The branches, with the help of our team of CPD facilitators, are doing a sterling job in helping pharmacists get to grips with their CPD and further advice will continue to be provided as the process develops.

I remain confident that pharmacists can rise to the challenge of being true professionals in what is a much more demanding environment. If we now get it right, it all adds up to pharmacists being able to make an unprecedented contribution to public health and patient welfare. I am sure that is what we all want.