New look at Registers
Following the furore earlier in the year over the splitting of the
Register and the introduction of the new fee structure, the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s Council agreed at its meeting last week to re-examine
the issues (p769). As part of that process, members will be invited to
put forward constructive proposals on what would be an equitable
way forward. The Journal, therefore, extends the invitation to members
to consider what future Registers might look like and how the fee structure
could ensure necessary revenues are raised to cover the Society’s
development over the next few years.
It is our genuine hope that there will be a resolution of the difficulties.
Write as promptly as possible to The Journal and we will forward letters
to the Society for consideration by the Resources and Management Committee
when it meets on 6 July. We hope to publish the most constructive suggestions
on 9 July.
The Journal is aware that the outcome will have to be a compromise and
that some members will remain disgruntled. Members should also be aware
that the total sum raised by fees will have to be maintained so that
any reduction in fee recommended for one group will have to be paid for
by the rest of the membership. Nevertheless, in thinking of possible
structures, members might like to consider some of the following issues:
Are two Registers sufficient? Should there be an additional category
for retired pharmacists, ie, those who do not work at all? If so, should
the fee for these members at least cover the cost of the paper, printing
and postage of The Journal?
Should the non-practising Register be redefined to include practising
pharmacists working overseas (providing they understand that they will
need to undergo additional training if they ever decide to practise in
Britain)? Should the term “practising pharmacist” really
embrace pharmacists who do not have any face-to-face patient contact
or any direct responsibility for pharmacists who do have face-to-face
patient contact? Does it devalue the practising Register to have pharmacists
listed there who do not and, without significant retraining, could not
work with patients?
Finally, is it in patients’ interests to be served by a pharmacist
who works about one day per week unless that pharmacist undertakes as
least as much CPD as a pharmacist who works full-time? And, if they do
undertake the same CPD, should they pay the same registration fee as
full-time pharmacists?
These are tricky issues but they need to be addressed if the Council
is to find a more equitable system to put in place for 2006.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal