| · Adverse events
· Supermarket pharmacy
· Research
· Regulation of medicines
· OTC statins
· Pricing (2)
· Pharmacy practice
· CPD
· Reciprocity
· Registration examination
· Veterinary pharmacy
· The Society
· Birdsgrove House (5)
Letters to the Editor
|
Continuing professional development (CPD)
New Council should review the situation of those approaching retirement
From Mr P. B. Dean, MRPharmS
In my view relatively little has been said about the difficulties facing
those pharmacists who were looking forward to supplementing their pension
with occasional locum work. Some may well be content to pay the increased
full registration fee, but are appalled at the demands of soon-to-be mandatory
continuing professional development. I am sure I am not the only one to
feel resentful that, after a lifetime of faithful service to the public
and the profession, I am faced with the stark choice of either jumping
through all the hoops of the “one-size-fits-all” scheme of
CPD or becoming “non-practising”. I am afraid I am not mollified
by Mr Matousek’s passive acceptance of the need to record so much
(PJ, 25 June, p789).
Continuing education is a self-discipline which should be automatic within
a profession, and indeed is demanded by the modern ethos of lifetime learning,
the reforms being pushed by the Government and not least the threat of
potential litigation.
I take issue with the lack of any choice in the form of CPD being demanded
and, specifically, with the lack of any correlation between the degree
and amount of CPD required and the type and amount of practice being undertaken.
This bears down particularly hard on those nearing the end of their careers.
It may be said that our knowledge base might be weaker in some areas than
that of younger, more recently educated colleagues but this is surely counterbalanced
by our practice-based knowledge and experience gained over many years.
During those years we have managed to deliver a professional, comprehensive
and, on the whole, well-appreciated service. Above all, we have delivered
it safely. Yet we are now to be deemed suddenly unprofessional, incompetent
and unsafe unless we comply with all the demands of CPD in the required
format and, above all, record not just what we have done, but the tortuous
process leading up to it even if the recording takes longer than the doing.
Did no one on the Council raise the idea of a “grandparent” clause
for those who have been on the Register and continually in practice for,
say, at least the past 10 or 20 years, as was done in the case of dispensers
or pharmacy assistants? If not, I would urge the new Council to consider
it without delay. These pharmacists could be offered the option of either
undertaking CPD or continuing education as hitherto. This would not unduly
retard the eventual commitment to full CPD by the profession and would
not endanger the public or bring the profession into disrepute. Not only
would us “oldies” be able to remain as practising, albeit part-time,
pharmacists for a few more years, but we would remain available to cover
holiday, sickness and training needs of full-time members.
P. B. Dean
Holton,
Oxford |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal