|
· General
election
· EU services directive
· Repeat dispensing
· Community pharmacy
· New contract
· Charge refunds
· Technicians
· Antipsychotics
· Methadone
· The profession (2)
· Registration
Letters to the Editor
|
The profession
Is governance helping or hindering health care?
From Mr N. Baumber, FRPharmS
Part of what I said (PDF 60K)
at the Avicenna conference (PJ, 9 April, p431) was that the
new contract is about three things: increasing the capacity of the NHS,
turning your business into a learning organisation and adopting new ways
of working. which is really about creating a quality assured system in
the pharmacy since things are getting beyond the abilities of one pharmacist
to cope.
However, I am dismayed by the bureaucratic way of achieving what should
really be inspiring and positive goals, by imposing standard operating
procedures, clinical and multidisciplinary audits, continuing professional
development, risk management, accreditation and patient satisfaction
surveys. These are making the whole process arduous, negative and divisive.
I have recently attended two of the worst meetings I can remember: one
supposedly on risk management (by the Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate
Education) and one on CPD (by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society). The
first was unrealistic and incredibly patronising in trying to advise
a method of investigating what went wrong in a dispensary. The analysis
intended for dissemination to others, was ambiguous and lost all concept
of what had happened in the first place. Risk management is a much wider
and informative method of managing an organisation and this was ignored
at the expense of an angry band of unimpressed pharmacists. I hasten
to add that this was not the fault of our much-loved facilitators.
The second was an attempt to pour light on the Society’s computer-focused
way of doing CPD. When you are involved in changing at least 11 areas
of structure, process and outcome within a business amounting to 38 active
areas of investigation and development of the new contract, the last
thing you want is to be told by the Society that you must identify your
learning requirements, break them down into theoretical competencies
and spend a lot of time telling your computer about them. I certainly
do not learn by the contrived process of reflection, planning, action
and evaluation.
This method of CPD is far too complicated and off target. It is still
entrenched in continuing education, not the development of community
pharmacy practice. It does not leave you with a record of things learnt
in the way that you would summarise in a notebook and later use as a
reference. The new programme is painful to read and practically illegible
on a 14-inch screen. It was significant that a large majority of those
turning out for this CPD meeting speedily confirmed their intention to
retire within five years and I shudder to think what the impact of that
will be on the workforce and recruitment.
In the aviation world there is a name for over-doing the bureaucracy:
it is “gold-plating”. It is about time there was some realism
and assessment about how much pharmacists can do in a working week and
whether these governance issues help or hinder health care.
Noel Baumber
Grantham, Lincolnshire
An undignified scramble for power
From Mrs J. Rothwell, FRPharmS
I have been on the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists for 58 years
and my life has revolved around the pharmaceutical profession. Today,
the profession conveys the impression of being involved in an undignified
scramble for power, introducing change which has been quickly thought
out without keeping the membership fully informed.
The many letters of protest to The Journal have demonstrated
the unease that exists within our profession. Such a feeling of distrust
within a body of intelligent people can only go on to create further
doubts in other areas where some members believe that they may not be
receiving information on matters of interest to many of them.
Jean Rothwell
Bolton, Lancashire
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal