The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7358 p84
16 July 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 130K, Acrobat Reader

· 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

Birdsgrove House

Review required

From Mr I. M. Caldwell, FRPharmS

I am grateful to Jack Illingworth (PJ, 2 July, p19) for his suggestion that an appeal to the membership may raise the £350,000 likely to be needed to bring Birdsgrove House up to current standards. This may well be correct but it misses the essential point. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s annual review 2004, p35, indicates that the house already operates at an annual deficit of over £300,000 — a substantial and ongoing drain on the Society’s charitable funds and by far the largest single outgoing.

Mr Illingworth rightly praises the Council of 1946, which purchased Birdsgrove, but the concept of convalescence and the needs of members have changed over the past 59 years. It may well be that the present and future imperative for our charitable efforts will centre on areas such as helping our less fortunate colleagues and their families meet the challenges of care in their later years, preferably in ways which will circumvent governmental desire to offset such assistance against state benefits.

It is quite possible that pharmacy is nowadays alone in providing its own convalescent home and that we have a rare understanding in this respect. As I suggested in earlier correspondence it is more likely that the professions and organisations which used to own a multitude of homes throughout the country have found other, more cost effective and fitting ways to provide for their members. If this is the case then we should be seeking to benefit from their experiences before we commit yet more funds to a worthy but grossly underused enterprise.

I share the concern of other correspondents on the future provision of care and recuperation for our fellow members, although I clearly have a different vision of how this should be provided. Indeed, I would take the whole question of benevolence further and suggest that the Trustees conduct a wide-ranging review of the current and likely future needs of disadvantaged members with a view to aligning the provision more closely with their requirements.

Ian Caldwell
Larkhall, South Lanarkshire

Some thoughts on costs associated with Birdsgrove House

From Mr W. T. Brookes, FRPharmS

I like Birdsgrove House. I like its peace, tranquillity, beauty and location. It is a place where I can relax in congenial company and return home completely refreshed. It is a facility we need to keep. However, I am not looking for a cheap holiday and I am prepared to pay the going rate for such a facility. Ian Caldwell, however, believes the true cost to be £8,000 per stay. This raises the question of the real costs and who foots the bill. I suggest that there are three costs arising from that question.

(1) Capital outlay needed to meet the Healthcare Commission requirements As I have previously said (PJ, 25 June, p790), at Bernard Kelly’s estimate of £350,000, this is less than £10 per member. It would be worthwhile making an appeal to individuals and branches. The response would certainly give an indication of the members’ interest in the matter. Reserves would have to be used to meet any shortfall unless other sources could be found.

(2) Annual running costs My difficulty is not knowing this figure. Mr Caldwell says these exceed £1m per annum. He also says that the income from the Birdsgrove House Fund from donations, legacies and investments covers about two thirds of the cost of provision. If these figures are correct, a further £300,000 is needed.

A few thoughts:

(a) Charge a realistic, but exorbitant rate to those seeking rest and recuperation.

(b) I assume that it is now registered as a private hospital because of its use as a treatment centre. I suggest that charges for that provision should reflect that requirement.

(c) Carry out a major marketing exercise to bring the occupancy rate up to a more commercially acceptable level.

(3) How to help impoverished members I fully endorse Mr Caldwell’s final paragraph. We are not a poor profession and this is an issue which must be brought into the debate.

Throughout this discussion there has been a lack of facts, particularly financial ones to inform our thinking. I am grateful for Mr Caldwell’s contribution but would have expected the Treasurer and Council to provide us with up to date costs and options. I hope that they too will contribute openly to the debate.

But debate — what debate? The Council can only listen, can only be influenced if it has something to listen to. Are members interested? If so their voices must be heard now, not after a decision has been made. The August Council meeting will be the deadline. Let us save Birdsgrove House.

Bill Brookes
Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire

Finding a similar facility

From Mrs M. Benfield, MRPharmS

I write in support of those who worry about the lack of the facilities available at Birdsgrove House. I think there would be less worry if members knew that if Birdsgrove House itself proved too expensive to bring up to the required standard, a similar facility would be purchased to replace it. (Yes, I realise that this means making decisions about the addiction unit, but that could be done.)

I am aware that the Benevolent Fund is willing to consider financial assistance where members need it, but that means that they have to make the effort to find somewhere suitable. For many of us it is not a matter of the money, but finding a place with care and companionship — one of the great assets of Birdsgrove House and its staff.

Margaret Benfield
Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire

Donation a good idea

From Mrs G. Richard, MRPharmS

In response to Jack Illingworth’s letter (PJ, 2 July, p19), I would like to add my agreement to trying to save our “house”. I was a pharmacist when it opened and I hope I shall not see its end. I have been able to stay there many times over the years.

The idea of a donation to a fund of only £10 per member is worth considering by the Council. I hope we shall hear more of this.

Grace Richard
Eastbourne, East Sussex

Membership should be involved in any Birdsgrove House decisions

From Mr S. Crowther, MRPharmS

The letter by Bill Brookes on the future of Birdsgrove House (PJ ,25 June, p791) raises an important point which must not be ignored; that the decision-making on the future of this facility should involve the membership.

The real value of rest and recuperation at Birdsgrove House is undoubtedly appreciated by those who have experienced the excellent facilities provided there. Those members who are currently active and enjoy good health, may eventually realise how fortunate we are that our Royal Pharmaceutical Society had the foresight — with the not inconsiderable support from the branches and industry — to open the convalescent home. The cost of their enterprise in the late 1940s must have been comparable to the £350,000 currently needed for refurbishment. Surely, as a caring Society we can emulate their initiative and raise the necessary capital?

It is imperative that the Council deliberations save this integral part of our Society — disbandment would be unforgivable, and also no doubt result in dispersal of the innumerable items so generously donated to Birdsgrove.

Sydney Crowther
Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (The Society)