How will the Society support dyslexic pharmacists? (Ms H. Badham)

Will workforce census be of any value? (Mr R. Shear)

Imagine what could be done with members' e-mail addresses (Mr R. Eyles)

A golden opportunity? (Mr M. G. Jones)

PETER BURLEY, head of preregistration, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

Some of the concerns Ms Badham raises were addressed in a recent article about the registration examination and the board of examiners (PJ, 18 June, p774). In particular the nature of the examination and its assessment was put into the wider context of assessments across the progression from admission to a school of pharmacy tothe first substantive post as a pharmacist.

The registration examination questions are presented on paper but they are in multiple choice and calculations formats, which means that they do not raise the same issues for dyslexic candidates as would an essay-based examination.

The question about support for dyslexic pharmacists is a much more general one. The responsibility for helping MPharm students lies with schools of pharmacy, which have done excellent work here. In the preregistration placements it is the supervising employer rather than the Society which can provide the immediate support. The board of examiners has decided that additional time is the most appropriate and realistic support it can give to dyslexic candidates, but they can also bring with them any aids to reading they would normally use — subject to notifying the board in advance. (This was discussed in the PJ article.) During the whole progression from student to professional, prospective pharmacists may also be receiving support from their local education authority, which it would not be appropriate for the Society to try to duplicate.

Supporting dyslexic members after registration raises different issues, but one specific area the Society is already addressing is making its website and electronic materials more accessible to dyslexic and other visually impaired users.

SUE AMBLER, head of practice research, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

For the reasons described in the covering letter to the workforce census (see also PJ, 3 September, p294) the data being collected and analysed are necessary to confirm (or refute) emerging trends from the previous exercises carried out in 2002 and 2003. The need for multiple data points to define a trend is as important in workforce research as it is pharmacology or pharmaceutics. It would be irresponsible of us to develop policy based only on two data points — once a stable picture emerges we will look to repeat the census every three or five years. We are not in that happy position yet.

However recognising the not inconsequential investment needed, not only in money but also in time, to conduct a stand alone workforce census the Society attempted to collect the workforce data needed as part of the 2005 retention fee exercise. The census form was sent out with every retention fee form and posted on the website for those paying their fees on the internet in December 2004. However the response rate to this approach was disappointing and as a result the data generated would have been unreliable. The data would not have allowed the Council and other stakeholders to base future policy decisions on robust knowledge of the current state of play regarding the workforce and would not have answered the important questions about the emerging trends.

We decided that this situation was not tenable at a time when so many factors are affecting the supply of and demand for pharmacists’ services and that the workforce census would therefore be repeated as a stand alone project. The costs have been met from existing 2005 budgets in two directorates — the conduct of the census will therefore have no impact on the 2006 retention fee.

Incidentally, the Society is not in financial crisis and the Council has already agreed that the 2006 retention fees will, overall, only rise by inflation.

Finally a plea, it is really important for the profession that the response rate to the census is as high as it can be. Pharmacists who have not returned their completed forms should do so quickly.

Those with queries can telephone 020 7572 2322 or e-mail registration@rpsgb.org

ANDY LANGLER, head of information management and technology, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:

Mr Eyles is correct to point out that the use of an individual’s date of birth is not a guarantee of security although it is nevertheless used in similar ways on a number of different websites by various organisations.

There are more robust methods that could have been used to ensure that only bona fide members of the Society had access to the page on the website in question. For example, mailings could have been carried out to inform each individual member of the URL of the page or to provide individual passwords for use when logging on to the site. Other options, such as some commercially available solutions, for example, the Athens system commonly used in areas of academia and the library world, were also reviewed. There are, however, not inconsiderable costs involved in adopting any of these approaches.

In setting up the system consideration was given to the nature of the information that is likely to be distributed by e-mail in the short term and the level of risk associated with this being misappropriated or used fraudulently. Given that the system was requested by branch secretaries to allow them to circulate information which is typically already available in the public domain (ie, on branch websites), it was thought that the level of validation conferred by using the date of birth was sufficient and the use of a more costly method was not necessary at this stage. I accept that it is possible for someone with sufficient motivation to collect colleagues’ dates of birth and use these to abuse the system but because of the nature of the information likely to be received it may not be seen as a good return for their efforts.

This system is something of a test bed to identify whether members react favourably to electronic means of communication rather than the more traditional methods. If the system proves to be well liked and successful, even allowing for the ease with which it can be duped, it could pave the way for more robust and secure systems. This would then allow greater use to be made of the website to distribute information and offer increased member services. If such an approach becomes required then greater levels of security and more robust steps to restrict access to the site will be included.

In the meantime if Mr Eyles, or anyone else, is concerned that a spurious e-mail address has been registered in their name they can simply (re)visit the appropriate page on the website and request that the e-mail address is deleted from the database.

As a final point, the “rpsgblist.org” address is derived from a secure virtual server used to assist in the delivery of several web services.