The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 274 No 7346 p496-500
23 April 2005

Society summary

Motions for branch representatives’ meeting

1. Cheltenham and Gloucester That the Council should review its current policy with regard to registration fees particularly for those who are practising part time.

The branch says: The Cheltenham and Gloucester branch accepts the need for continuing professional development for all practising members of the profession. However, the abolition of a concession for part-time pharmacists has caused serious problems for those who for personal reasons cannot or choose not to work for a period (eg, expectant or nursing mothers) or who are only able to work the occasional day (eg, mothers of young children or recently retired pharmacists). It is quite unreasonable that these categories who provide an essential service to the profession and the public should be expected to pay the full fee of £256, making the odd day’s locum quite uneconomic.

The Council says: All practising pharmacists receive the benefits of registration and are required to undertake CPD. The reintroduction of a part-time fee category would mean pharmacists could continue to receive the benefits of (practising) registration and meet CPD requirements while paying a reduced fee.

The cost to the Society of registration is constant, regardless of the number of hours worked by the pharmacist. Costs relating to producing and distributing the CPD packs and The Pharmaceutical Journal, general correspondence, registration and fee collection are independent of the fee the pharmacist pays.

The Society would be required to make up any loss of income, which could amount to £700,000. This figure assumes that the proportion of part-time pharmacists would be similar to 2004 with a practising fee of £256 (2005 practising fee) and part-time fee of £116 (2004 figure). The impact of the above proposal may equate to a £23 increase on the retention fee of each practising pharmacist.

A review of salaries for locum posts advertised in the PJ indicates that the practising fee relates to one day’s and no more than two days’ potential earnings before tax.

CPD requirements for pharmacists paying the proposed part-time fee would be the same as for those paying the practising fee. The Society has no policy in place on the minimum number of days to be worked in order to ensure competence but it is reasonable that no fewer than one day’s practice per month will be required to ensure continued competence.
For those who choose not to work for a period of time, registration as non-practising remains an option.

2. Leicestershire and Rutland That support material for campaigns supported by the Society should be in the hands of the members a reasonable time before the launch date.

The branch says: A straw poll of members attending a branch meeting revealed that, for a significant proportion, the material for Ask About Medicines Week arrived late or even once the week had begun, leaving members no time to prepare for it. The purpose of this motion is to stimulate the Society to ensure that members receive the material for such events in good time, allowing adequate preparation and display.

The Council says: Although the Society works closely with the Medicines Partnership, it is the Medicines Partnership that is responsible for the planning and management of the campaign. The Ask About Medicines Week team say that they appreciate the frustration felt by members at receiving some materials late. This was owing to slow decision-making by the Department of Health in relation to the fold-out medicines reminder charts. In this case, the team was informed that a query (content not specified) had been raised about the materials by an (unnamed) ministerial adviser, who subsequently took his summer holiday. Sign-off was delayed until his return, leading to slippage in production and distribution.

3. Leicestershire and Rutland That branch committees should be able to recognise local veteran members of the Society in a manner which is suitably dignified and in keeping with the honour and status of the Society.

The branch says: Pharmacists who have reached 50 or 60 years on the Register receive a brief letter of acknowledgement and congratulations from the President. The Leicestershire branch attempted to recognise four such pharmacists by presenting them with a locally produced certificate of recognition and congratulation. The Society expressed concern over this action; the use of the Society’s coat of arms or name might be understood by the public as conferring upon the recipients something that was not intended. Any further repetition of the certificate was discouraged.

The purpose of this motion is to facilitate branches so inclined to recognise local pharmaceutical veterans in a suitably dignified and professional manner.

The Council says: A branch may congratulate a pharmacist achieving 50, 60, or 70 years’ registration, within the rules for branch administration and in line with good practice. For example, a branch may choose to make a collection in order to present a member with a suitably engraved gift to mark the occasion.

Protection of the public is, of course, a primary concern for the Society. It would be crucial to avoid producing certificates bearing the Society’s logo that could be confused by the general public with legitimate pharmacist registration certificates. The Society is considering how presentation materials for long-standing pharmacists could be formalised to overcome this difficulty.

4. Bolton That the Society, in consultation with the membership, should review the structure, role, operation and functions of the regional committees.

The branch says: The Bolton branch feels that, at the current level of funding, the regions are unable to perform a useful function. When a full review has been undertaken, regions need to receive sufficient funding to enable them to perform their designated role adequately. The alternative is to dissolve them and put their funding to better use elsewhere.

The Council says: At the regional secretaries’ meeting in 2004, the future of the regions was discussed. There was an evident divergence of views about the role and purpose of the regions and about how they should develop.

It was agreed that this issue needed further exploration and that secretaries would go back to their committees for ideas on the future of the regions. Feedback continues to come in and will be collated in due course for further discussion in October. We welcome ideas from delegates to the BRM.

5. Bolton That the Society should permit permanently retired, non-practising pharmacists who have been on the Register for 50 years to remain members for life without further charge.

The branch says: As part of a caring profession, the Bolton branch feels it is intolerable that members in their twilight years and, having given a lifetime of service to the profession and practice of pharmacy, should be required to pay what can be to them a significant sum of money to maintain contact with their Society.

The Council says: At 50, 60 and 70 years on the Register, pharmacists are sent a letter from the President acknowledging their long-standing registration. At the time of writing, there are 1,751 pharmacists who have been on the Society’s Register for 50 or more years.

The numbers of pharmacists on the Register for more than 50 years would in all likelihood grow as a result of the proposal. During the past 12 months, 633 pharmacists retired from the Register who would have qualified for life registration under these proposals. Pharmacists who otherwise would have left the Register as they retired from work would maintain registration.

Using the 2005 Register, and assuming all “life members” previously paid the non-practising fee, the lost fee revenue if the above proposal were implemented would be in excess of £80,500 per year. The Society would be required to make up any loss of income and meet increased costs. The impact of the above proposal could equate to a £2.40 increase per fee-paying pharmacist.

Pharmacists who pay the non-practising fee of £46 already receive a substantial discount on their fees.

6. Clwyd; South Cheshire That pharmacy technicians who are registrants of the Society should belong to a Society branch and have the right to participate in branch activities including CPD and to stand for office in the branch, and that the core funding should be expanded accordingly.

The branches say: The Society opened a voluntary register of pharmacy technicians in January 2005. The Society expects that the Section 60 Order [under the Health Act 1999] will make provision for the title “pharmacy technician” to become protected in law. After a transitional period, it will be a legal requirement for anyone who wishes to use the title “pharmacy technician” to be registered with the Society.

Pharmacy technicians and pharmacists work closely together and it would be advantageous for both groups to be combined within the branch structure and to have the opportunity to meet locally.

Our branches, along with many others, have supported the development of the technician role and encouraged them to attend branch meetings, which in turn has stimulated team building. However, this has imposed a burden on branch finances and the problem may increase with the new requirements for registration of technicians. The public deserve the same standard of care from all staff and this is recognised by the Society in the Code of Ethics for pharmacists and technicians and the registration of technicians. So could the grant be increased to reflect this?

The Council says: The regional and branch networks support the Society’s roles both as professional leadership body and regulatory body for pharmacists. The Society’s role in relation to pharmacy technicians is that of regulator and, while it will undertake a wide range of functions to ensure the competence and fitness to practise of its pharmacy technician registrants, other bodies such as the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK will take on the professional leadership role. The support services and facilities to be funded for technicians need to be scoped and agreed by the Council but, meanwhile, the decision on whether or not to invite pharmacy technicians to attend and contribute to the branches will continue to rest with the branches themselves. The Society can, on request, provide branches with mailing lists of registered technicians who are resident within the branch area.

7. Thames Valley That changes should be made to the Byelaws Section III subsection 6 regarding fellows: “Members designated as fellows of the Society shall be so designated only as long as they remain members.” This branch requests the Council to give due consideration that changes could be made to the said Byelaw so that fellows who resign from the Register retain their designated fellowship.

The branch says: The reason that the motion has been presented is due to overall changes that have occurred in the Byelaws of membership registration for 2005, namely the practising and non-practising categories, and resignations from the Register. Historically the majority of fellows would have registered as “retired pharmacists” under the old Byelaws and as such would have remained so until they died, thus retaining their designated fellowship. Now these aforementioned fellows have, because of the circumstances forced upon them, reluctantly and with due sadness resigned their membership with the consequences therein. Thus the motion presented in some small way attempts to retain the status quo for these fellows.

The Council says: There are currently 301 fellows so designated because they registered before 1 February 1951 and 520 fellows who are so designated through the panel system. Only members of the Society can be fellows because the term “fellow” is a restricted title in law (Medicines Act 1968, Section 78(5)(a)). However, members do not have to be on the practising register unless, of course, they are still practising. The fee for non-practising members, which incorporates the former “retired” category, is currently less than £1 a week and includes weekly provision of The Pharmaceutical Journal. All members, and hence all fellows, are covered by the Society’s Code of Ethics.

8. Gwent That the Society should make best efforts in avoiding the need to increase members’ retention fees, or at least keeping such increases below the level of the Retail Prices Index or any similar index in widespread use at the time.

The branch says: The membership has been informed by the President that a “new financial strategy to secure the Society’s income stream and safeguard the future” is responsible for the large and real increases in retention fees. The meaning of this statement may not be immediately clear to rank and file members. The increases, which are fixed costs for the members, when compared with RPI over the past six years, have exceeded this index by a staggering 63 per cent.

Now that the new Charter has been delivered and strategy for the Society set, it may be time to consolidate and examine ways of substantially reducing overheads such that the objective of containing retention fees may be achieved.

The Council says: It is true that, as part of a five-year plan to improve the Society’s financial security and underpin the development of membership activities, the Council approved a five-year financial strategy in August 2004. The key issues are:

· The new Charter has strong emphasis on the professional and membership support roles for the Society. The Society is already active in professional development and professional representation to political and opinion former audiences. New roles for the branches, work to promote local pharmacy leadership and a review of the impact of devolution are among developments that are currently in train. All these areas of activity need a stable funding base.

· The Society finances its activities both from fee income (some £8.5m) and from the surplus generated by its publications activities. The contribution from publications now subsidises a significant part of the Society’s core work, which the Council agreed is not prudent in a risk market. Over the next five years, the retention fee will need to be increased to bring it to a level that can sustain the full scope of the Society’s membership and regulatory activity.

· Recently, the Society’s cash reserves have been drawn on to meet expenditure and the level of their replenishment has depended largely on the year-end financial result. The Council agreed that it is part of its duty to safeguard the Society’s long-term financial future by building the reserves back to an appropriate level.

9. Northumbrian That, with respect to payment of annual retention fees, members should be provided with the facility to pay their annual retention fees in instalments (eg, by monthly direct debit) and that a reduced fee should be reintroduced for those practising pharmacists who work on an occasional basis, or part-time for an average of just a few hours per week.

The branch says: It is now common practice for people to make arrangements for goods and services that were previously billed on an annual, biannual or quarterly basis — for example, gas, electricity, council tax and water charges — to be paid for by monthly direct debit at no extra cost. With the increasing costs of annual retention fees it is felt that it is now time that a similar facility should be made available to the Society’s members. This would be particularly beneficial to those members on lower incomes and those who find it difficult to pay the full amount of over £250 in January. It may also be administratively convenient for the Society. It is appreciated that the provision of such as facility may necessitate some changes to the Society’s Byelaws, but this should not be a reason for the Council giving it careful consideration.

There are a number of pharmacists who have a commitment to continuing professional development, but have only worked on average for just a few hours per week or on an occasional basis (eg, to provide emergency locum cover or to provide pharmaceutical advice). The abolition of the reduced fee is, for some of these pharmacists, acting as a disincentive for them to continue as practising pharmacists despite a desire to do so.

The Council says: Once fees are set and approved by the Privy Council, the Society does not have the power to vary them.

Applicable legislation and Byelaws state that retention fees become due and payable on 1 January each year (Pharmacy Act 1954 and Byelaws). The applicable rules require payment in full as a requirement for retention on the Register. Members who do not want to pay the entire fee at one time are able to spread payments by paying online using a credit card.

The second part of this motion is addressed by the background note to the Cheltenham and Gloucester motion (motion 1).

10. Northumbrian That, although we applaud the Society for allowing honoraria to be granted to branch and regional secretaries, we feel that a quorum of fellow committee members should be given the discretion to reward their secretaries with a fee that more fairly reflects the time he or she has devoted to secretarial activities.

The branch says: Some branches are fortunate enough to have a dedicated secretary and individuals may have been in post for a number of years. The Northumbrian branch is a particularly large branch with well over 700 members and has such a secretary.

Our secretary writes a monthly/bimonthly newsletter and sources and chases up most of the speakers that we have at our meetings. In addition he organises an annual series of meetings that run in tandem to the branch programme, focusing specifically on clinical aspects in a therapeutic area. He also networks with many local and regional groups to co-ordinate activities (including attempting to minimise duplication of meetings and preventing timetable clashes, etc).

Although we poll approximately 5–10 per cent at each meeting, with variable levels of apathy and with people claiming that their lives are becoming increasingly busy, recruiting new committee members is not the easiest pastime and there is some concern that people may not volunteer to take on such roles as secretary in the future, especially when not even justifiably rewarded for their labours.

On the one hand the Society is prepared to pay branch observers to Council and committee meetings £160 for merely “observing” and yet on the other hand each branch or region is told to set a ceiling of £200 for a secretary. One surely has to agree that the maths do not add up.

The Council says: Branches that choose to award their secretary an honorarium do so as a gesture of acknowledgement and thanks for a job well done. We recognise and applaud the dedication and commitment that secretaries put into their branches but are not in a position to offer funds to reward secretaries commensurate with the hours and effort expended.

11. British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association That an urgent overhaul of the MPharm is required.

The association says: The BPSA believe that a review of pharmacy education is needed. This is to ensure pharmacists have the appropriate education and training to guarantee they are fit to practise and the pharmacy workforce is fit for purpose in the changing face of the pharmacy profession. A review in the broadest sense to cover policy, rules and standards should also examine delivery, capacity and organisation of pharmacy education.

Government policy drivers, new contracts for community pharmacy and leading edge practice — such as prescribing and medicines management — becoming more widespread throughout the profession, necessitate changes to pharmacy education at this time.

A key issue affecting pharmacy students today is that of being able to obtain a preregistration placement after completion of the pharmacy degree. Recently it has been seen that the availability of preregistration places is decreasing, which is of concern to many pharmacy students. An increasing number of pharmacy undergraduates in established schools and the advent of new schools of pharmacy, with no increase in preregistration places to match, raise the issue of capacity and organisation in the current preregistration and registration process.

A review of the MPharm degree and pharmacy education as a whole will highlight where changes need to be made. The BPSA believes that increased integration of practical clinical placements and theoretical teaching, on the basis of solid, relevant, science and practice, not science versus practice, is the way forward for pharmacy education and will help provide a solution to the number of preregistration places.

As an association, we are represented on the Society’s Education Committee and have had the opportunity to be actively involved with the Society’s research projects into pharmacy education. We hope to be able to contribute positively to the future of pharmacy education and look forward to working with the Society and other groups in developing pharmacy education to satisfy the needs and aspirations of the future of pharmacy.

The Council says: The Society realises there is a need for significant change to equip pharmacists with the knowledge, skill and attitudes they will need as they progress through their career in the 21st century. As part of this work, the Society is well aware of the need for a revision of the MPharm curriculum and has begun work on it. Rather than examine it in isolation, however, this work will be part of a wider review of undergraduate, preregistration and postregistration education. The wide-ranging and complex programme will involve consulting many internal and external stakeholders: members, the Department of Health, schools of pharmacy, patient groups, employers and, of course, the BPSA. Each will be contacted in due course and at various points in the process, once the core workstreams and outputs have been identified. The BPSA will appreciate that taking views from such diverse stakeholders and agreeing a course of action that takes all those views into account will not be a quick or easy process.

All of the issues identified by the BPSA in its motion are part of the review, namely fitness to practise, the availability of student preregistration places and the impact of new schools of pharmacy, the possible integration of the MPharm and preregistration, policy, rules and standards and the new community pharmacy contract.

12. British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association That the current system of exemption from prescription charges should be extensively reviewed.

The association says: The BPSA believes that the system of prescription charges should be reviewed because, as it stands today, it is unfair. In particular, charges do not just deter unnecessary use of medicines, but also deter use of medicines by people with current non-exempt conditions. The exemption system is open to abuse.

Community pharmacists are a good source of information on how best to reform the prescription charges. They, along with general practitioners, have the knowledge and expertise to be part of a prescription review system. The review system will address the inequalities in the current structure and will look to rationalise medical conditions that provide exemption.

The Council says: In January 2005 the Society published a policy paper on prescription charges entitled “Prescription charges: should they be abolished?” [available from the policy section of the Society‘s website]. The report considered the whole area of prescription charges, especially in the light of the plans of the Welsh Assembly Government to abolish prescription charges by 2007.

The report states the Society’s position that there should be no financial barrier to the use of prescribed medicines. That implies either a move to abolition following the example of Wales, or a major reform of the existing charging system in a way that could be shown to have little or no deterrent effect on use.

The Society acknowledges that in the light of the financial, professional and industry considerations set out in the paper, the relevant administrations might wish to proceed in a measured way, taking due account of the impact of phased abolition in Wales.

The Society considers that, in the interim, studies should be commissioned into a number of key issues — in particular, the impact of the current arrangements on those with long-term conditions who require medication on a continuing basis; the response by users to other changes that affect access to medicines, particularly further switches from POM to P or GSL status; and the lessons to be drawn from the experience in Wales as it unfolds.

The report has been sent to the Secretary of State for Health, John Reid.

13. Northamptonshire That registration examinations should undergo a review. Instead, the preregistration year should focus on competence-based learning and objective structured clinical examinations (OCSEs) and perhaps include a practice-based examination.

The branch says: The registration examination seems to be testing the academic achievement of the graduates, which surely has been clarified by the successful achievement of a masters degree in pharmacy, and their ability to search through resources like the British National Formulary and ‘Medicines, ethics and practice: a guide for pharmacists’.

Being a competent pharmacist is not only about academic achievement but should relate more to the ability to link knowledge with clinical and other skills in practice. Rather than the year being one of professional development, by February, the graduates begin to focus more on passing the examination than developing the competencies required.

Failing the examination does not prove one to be incompetent. Many graduates do not do well in examinations due to nervousness and lack of speed but are excellent in using and developing their skills in practice. They do not agree that calculations are an essential part of a pharmacist’s training, but perhaps this could be changed to a course followed by a test, or incorporated at university.

We propose that a structured course should be set up with modular examinations to test different aspects of pharmacy (eg, clinical, law and ethics). This would break up the preregistration year so that graduates can focus on different parts of the syllabus and work their way towards becoming knowledgeable and competent pharmacists.

The Council says: The present arrangement is based on an understanding between the Society, the schools of pharmacy and pharmacy employers as to what is assessed, in what way and by whom, at the various stages of progression from entry to the MPharm course to admission to the Register.

The current pattern is of assessment of academic knowledge at the schools of pharmacy, assessment of work place practice by employers during the preregistration year (in three quarterly assessments and sign-off by a tutor), and assessment of whether the trainee has learned to apply knowledge of theory and practice at the end of the preregistration year by means of the Society’s registration examination. It would be inappropriate to change one part of this pattern of assessment in isolation from the others.

To this end, the Society has already started conducting a major review of all the types of examination and assessment and will be consulting members on them. This is work that had already been identified and scheduled, but now also falls within the context of preparing to implement the Section 60 Order over the next few years. The timetable for the outcome of this work will be dictated by the Government’s own timetable for the legislation. It is difficult, however, to see that the Society could achieve major change, if that is the outcome of review and consultation, any faster than the prospective legislation will allow for in any case. In addition, the new powers anticipated in the Order should allow the Society to set and enforce standards more effectively and to join up educational development work with other strands of the Society’s activities that cannot be done so well at present.

More immediately, the Society, through its board of examiners and through regular liaison with pharmacy employers, does keep the appropriateness of the preregistration year standards and assessments, and the registration examination and its syllabus, under review. This continuous review is always mindful of the competence of newly qualified pharmacists to practise.

Whether to take assessments away from a written tests towards universal OSCE is a question the Society always needs to bear in mind. The Society can be informed by the outcome of work on this same issue for medical education undertaken by the Post-registration Medical Education Training Board. The PMETB has taken the view that assessment must be both workplace-based (of competence and practice) and by formal examination (to test knowledge). Neither form of assessment is sufficient by itself. This suggests that the Society should continue to encourage the use of OSCEs as part of the assessment of the preregistration year but not as an alternative to the registration examination.

Lastly, the proposals in the motion have been incorporated in the review process mentioned above.

14. West Metropolitan That an extra membership category should be created, with an appropriate retention fee levied, to encompass retired pharmacists. This extra membership would be in addition to the practising and non-practising categories that are now in existence.

The branch says: At the August 2004 Council meeting, an agreement was made that there would be only be two levels of membership fee, one for practising pharmacists and another for non-practising pharmacists. At the same time that the fee structure was rationalised, there was an increase of about 25 per cent in membership fees.

The West Metropolitan branch understands and acknowledges that a rise in fees was made to ensure financial stability for the Society, in reducing the reliance on the income gained from publications. Unfortunately, the rise in fees will hit retired pharmacists the most, especially as the current plans are to increase the non-practising fee to one-third of the practising fee over the next couple of years.

Retired pharmacists, many of whom have been on the Register for many years, should be allowed to pay a reduced fee, covering the costs of The Pharmaceutical Journal and administration costs so that they can continue to be members of the Society.

The Council says: The non-practising fee (£46) is substantially lower than the practising fee (£256) and offers full benefits of registration. This reduced fee only partially recovers the costs associated with continued registration and distribution of the PJ. An annual subscription to the PJ is £175. The non-practising fee is set to increase in stages to a third of the level of the practising fee but the Council has agreed to review this policy.

15. West Metropolitan That the Society should endeavour to increase the number of preregistration placements available to pharmacy graduates.

The branch says: Undertaking the role of a preregistration tutor requires an enormous work commitment from the tutor as well as all the other members of staff at the training site. Some hospitals have reduced the number of preregistration trainees that they take, while others have stopped taking them altogether, due to the large drain on resources that this training now requires.

Three new schools of pharmacy have recently opened and another is expecting to take applications during 2005. These new schools of pharmacy will mean that there will be a large increase in the number of pharmacy students, which will therefore lead to an increased number of pharmacy students or graduates looking for preregistration placements from 2008 onwards. Unless there is an increase in the number of preregistration placements, there will be pharmacy graduates unable to obtain preregistration placements, simply because demand outweighs supply.

The overall aim of increasing the number of pharmacy students is to increase the number of qualified pharmacists. An increase in the number of pharmacy students will increase the number of pharmacy graduates. However, if the number of preregistration placements is not increased, then this will have no effect on the number of qualified pharmacists.

This problem has started to raise its head, with some graduates already having difficulty in obtaining preregistration placements due to a lack of availability. Therefore, the Society needs to act now to ensure that there is an increase in the number of preregistration placements.

The Council says: For 2004–05, all those looking for placements seem to have found them — even if not their first choice for where and when. It is too early to tell for 2005–06, but the current expansion of placements is keeping pace with the increase in numbers of graduates from the existing schools of pharmacy. In 2003, there were 2,488 pharmacies approved for preregistration training and in 2004 the number had risen to 2,840. For a variety of reasons, not all these will take trainees each year.

The Society, however, has no direct responsibility for the provision of preregistration placements, which is a matter for pharmacy employers. There is no central co-ordinating mechanism as there is in some other health professions (eg, medicine). It is also the responsibility of the higher education sector — and the universities delivering the MPharm within it — to be aware of the number of placements available when planning future undergraduate numbers. The Society has no power to refuse to accredit courses on the basis of insufficient preregistration placements. The Society can, and does, seek to influence employers and the higher education sector to try to balance the numbers of graduates with numbers of placements. To date, however, the higher education sector has not been willing to restrict the numbers of graduates to match the known number of placements and pharmacy employers have developed placements no faster than the existing schools of pharmacy have increased the numbers of graduates.

The Society is taking all the steps it can within its powers. It has, for example, recently facilitated the private hospital sector to become a new source of preregistration placements for the future. The Society has also deferred making cross-sector experience mandatory. This is one of the few relevant areas where the Society has the full discretion to act on its own authority, and it has taken this action to avoid exacerbating the problem from its side.

The main arena for forthcoming discussions on the balance between graduates and placements should be in response to the report of the UK Health Departments’ Workforce Planning Advisory Group. The NHS (in England) has given undertakings to support the creation of more placements. This should be developed in the recommendations in the report and is also reflected in the recent announcement of an increase in the training grant from £4,910 to £16,440.

16. Lincoln That in the interests of patient safety all tablets and capsules be marked with a clear, identifiable, common code.

The branch says: In an age when litigation is fast becoming the norm for medical errors, it seems incomprehensible that we still have a system that is not uniform for the identification of medication. Manufacturers can register an identification code for their product but at present there appears to be no common link between the different brands, especially where generics are concerned.

Many tablets and capsules are marked, but none bear a common code. For example, frusemide can be “f40”, “2b2” or “DLI”. Under our proposal the code for frusemide would be “FRU4”, for thyroxine 100mcg the code would read “THY1”, with the manufacturer’s mark placed on the other half of a capsule or the reverse of a tablet. The manufacturer would have a registered mark, eg, “GSK” for GlaxoSmithKline, “TEV” for Teva, “APS” and so on.

This code could be adopted in Europe if not world-wide. There inevitably are problems — cyclophosphamide 50 and cyclizine 50 would both be “CYC5” and clashes of this nature would have to be sorted. Bumetanide 1mg would have an unfortunate code — “BUM1” — and sales may fall. But we believe the idea should be investigated and developed.

The Council says: The Society has been working with the National Patient Safety Agency on a number of related issues. The main thrust of our joint work has been over reducing the risk of errors being made over the choice of medicine through similar packaging. The Society is also advocating the standardisation of bar codes, etc, used on medicines packaging. This would allow the development of electronic systems that would identify a product from its bar code or a similar electronic method such as radio frequency identification.

Any changes to packaging or marking on tablets and capsules would need to be replicated across Europe and possibly world-wide. This is because of the global nature of the pharmaceutical industry and the increasing amount of parallel imported products coming into Britain from Europe and beyond. The co-operation of the pharmaceutical industry, including generic manufacturers, and parallel importers would be required to achieve such a change.

17. Teesside That the Society should fund branches to enable them to run a full programme without commercial sponsorship.

The branch says: The current annual branch capitation allowance is insufficient to fund the provision of an increasingly full range of local professional meetings throughout the year without charging for attendance. Commercial sponsorship is, therefore, sought to fund meetings. It is evident that pharmaceutical companies will only fund meetings if so doing will be to their commercial advantage.

It serves the profession ill that branches are obliged due to the lack of resources to accept commercial sponsorship when primary care trusts have increasingly discouraged this at their meetings.

There are three main options for pharmacy: (1) to charge members an admittance fee; (2) to increase the retention fee to fund meetings; (3) to increase central funding. The members of Teesside branch believe that option 1 would lead to the demise of the local branch meeting and that option 2 would be unwelcome in view of the recent swingeing increase in fees. We propose that funding to branches is increased to its former level if the voluntary system of branch organisation of meetings is to continue without the incessant seeking of commercial sponsorship.

The Council says: The new method of funding branches was introduced in 2003 with the aim of opening up extra funding for branches with an active programme while encouraging others to mobilise unspent reserves for the benefit of membership activities. All branches are now allocated core funding and all are now entitled to apply for extra funding to support their planned annual programme. Some branches have found that the new method of allocating funding means that their funding has increased. Some branches supplement this with sponsorship in cash or kind from commercial companies and this is acceptable as long as the arrangement is transparent, reasonable and professional. As part of our corporate governance work, we are working on more detailed guidance for branches to help them manage sponsorship in a more consistent way.

18. Brighton That it should be made mandatory for all community pharmacies to operate a locum signing-in procedure. This will enable the recording of a contact address and a home or mobile telephone number in order to expedite the resolution of any subsequent problems involving the work of that locum.

The branch says: In areas where there is a shortage of locum pharmacists, Saturday morning and emergency cover often has to be provided by pharmacists who do not live in the area and are therefore not particularly well known. Should any queries arise regarding prescriptions dispensed while such locums are in charge, it can be difficult to track the pharmacist down quickly. This presents a particular difficulty when a time limit is set for acting on complaints and queries from the public.

The Council says: Section A2 of the Code of Ethics refers to pharmacists who own a pharmacy, superintendent pharmacists and pharmacist managers in hospitals and trusts and other fields of practice. In this section it states that these pharmacists are responsible for ensuring that a retrievable record of the pharmacist taking responsibility for the provision of each pharmacy service is maintained and that an identifiable pharmacist is accountable for all activities of non-pharmacists involved in the provision of pharmacy services.

It is also highly likely that the implementation of the electronic transfer of prescriptions will require a record to be kept of the pharmacist taking professional responsibility for each prescription dispensed.