| · Prescribing
· Dispensing doctors
· Information systems
· Adverse event reporting (2)
· Pharmacy graduates
· New contract
· Pharmacy technicians
· Community pharmacy
· Birdsgrove House (2)
· Reciprocal registration
Letters to the Editor
|
Birdsgrove House
Questions needing answers — full and frank debate required
From Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS
Like Philip Crabtree
and Margaret Partington (PJ, 7 May, p544), I, too,
was informed some months ago that Birdsgrove House was not taking bookings
for rest and recuperation and that I would be told when it would reopen.
I learnt from subsequent enquiries that, although some alterations seemed
to be required as a result of the National Care Standards Commission’s
inspections, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s response was not
known. I, therefore, wrote to the Secretary and Registrar expressing
my concerns at the lack of information and received a response covering
the same ground as Bernard Kelly’s article (PJ, 14 May, p596).
However, unanswered questions remain:
· Why has it taken so long to inform those attempting to book accommodation
and members in general about the problems that have apparently been developing
since 2003 which led to the suspension of bookings from August 2004?
· Would we know anything at all if letters had not been written?
· What are the financial implications of meeting the new requirements
of the NCSC? Is it a one-off outlay or more long term? How much will
it cost?
· Why is it taking so long to develop costed options and will members
be told what they are? If so, when?
· The final paragraph of Mr Kelly’s article begins: “In due
course … the Council will consider the options and decide on the
future use of Birdsgrove House.” Can he clarify “in due course”?
What input will members be able to have to these considerations and when?
The silence of the past two years could well make one think that there
is a hidden agenda with the closure of Birdsgrove House the ultimate
aim.
Ian Caldwell makes a strong case for selling Birdsgrove House which
cannot be ignored (PJ, 14 May, p582). But it is only one part of the
discussion. There needs to be a full and frank debate on the subject
with all the relevant facts on the table and with members as fully involved
as possible. No decisions should be made until that debate has taken
place.
I hope that we shall soon see the start of that debate and that Mrs Partington’s
fears about the fate of Birdsgrove House going unnoticed will prove to
be unfounded.
W. T. Brookes
Stoke-on-Trent,
Staffordshire
| |
This issue was also raised during the discussion forum that
preceded the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s annual
general meeting on
24 May. We intend to publish a report of the discussion in next week’s
issue.
— EDITOR
|
The house could be a valuable asset
From Mrs J. Rothwell, FRPharmS
When Birdsgrove House was in the process of adding services within the
new addiction and alcohol rehabilitation centre a few years ago, members’ views
were canvassed about how the existing convalescent services might be expanded
to provide more help to visiting pharmacists. Several pharmacists expressed
ideas but they fell on stony ground and no changes were forthcoming.
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society had made up its mind about
offering accommodation to treat people from other professions who required
help with their addictions of various types. It seems that the number of
pharmacist guests continue to diminish. Now we are being persuaded that
alternative provision could be made for convalescent pharmacists and their
relatives — such as hotel accommodation, which would be just as good.
The views expressed in the article
by Bernard Kelly (PJ, 14 May, p596),
must surely not have been unforeseen, particularly when the new treatment
centre was established. What surprises me is the fact that members were
not told of this nine months ago when guests were no longer being accepted.
Spending money does not appear to deter the Society when plans for extension
and refurbishment at Lambeth require funding. I think that the proposed
new Council chamber, intended to cater for an additional few members, does
not compare with the thinking associated with a need to dispose of Birdsgrove
House when spending a much smaller amount could make a vast difference
to the type of environment in which ailing pharmacists could relax and
recuperate. If improvements were introduced, Birdsgrove House might very
well become an income generator after several years of inattention, possibly
becoming an even more valuable asset.
I trust that pharmacists will give some thought to the way in which our
Society operates. I hope that the dramatic change in the membership of
the Council will bring more open discussion with the membership when any
major changes are under consideration.
Jean Rothwell
Bolton, Lancashire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal