Council's response to BRM resolutions
This report, approved by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's
Council at its August meeting, gives the Council's response to the resolutions
passed at the Society's branch representatives' meeting on 25 May (PJ,
11 June, pp719–722 PDF (120K)). Readers may wish to refer to the
branches’ explanatory notes and the Council’s background
information published with the motions (PJ, 23 April, p495)
Review of fee for part-time practice
A. That the Council should review its
current policy with regard to registration fees, particularly for those
who are practising part time [motion from Cheltenham and Gloucester
branch].
Council response: At its August meeting, the Council decided to make
changes to the retention fee structure for pharmacists.
The Council decided that, following a rise in fees of 25 per cent for
2005, fees for 2006 should only rise in line with inflation. The Council
agreed that personal retention fees for practising pharmacists should
rise by 3 per cent, which was adjusted to a rise of 4.3 per cent to take
into account the Council’s further decisions on fees. This gives
a retention fee of £267 for 2006. Fees for registration, reciprocity,
restoration, preregistration, examination, resit and late entry, as well
as fees relating to adjudication, will all rise by 3 per cent.
For non-practising pharmacists, the retention fee is to rise from £46
to £60. This increase was agreed to cover the cost of administration
and providing The Pharmaceutical Journal. The Council agreed to change
previous policy that there should be a link between the level of the
non-practising fee and the practising fee. The 2004 decision to raise
the non-practising fee over three years to one third of the level of
the practising fee has therefore been reversed.
In 2006, non-practising members who have been on the Register continuously
for over 50 years will be eligible for a reduced charge of £20
to recognise long-standing service and contribution to the profession.
Non-practising members who left the Register in the 2005 retention fee
cycle because of concerns about the changes in fee structure are being
invited to rejoin the
non-practising Register without incurring an application or restoration
fee.
The Council agreed to refer the issue of part time fees to the Resource
Management Committee for a full exploration of the
issues associated with the retention fee for practising members who do
not work full time and for those on low incomes.
The Council also agreed a new rate for overseas pharmacists who are practising
overseas (and registered with an overseas competent authority, where
appropriate) but not practising in Britain. Pharmacists resident overseas
who fall into this category, who wish to remain on the Society’s
Register will pay a fee of £106. The fee was agreed in order to
cover the full costs of administration and airmailing the PJ to overseas
membership.
The Council also agreed a 3 per cent increase to technician retention
fees. A practising technician will pay £88 and a non-practising
technician will pay £67 to retain their names on the Register in
2006. The Council also agreed that the 2006 retention fee would be included
in the registration application fee for those technicians entering the
Register between October and December 2005 and that those technicians
entering the Register in this period would not be required to pay a separate
retention fee in 2006.
The decisions require a change in Byelaw, which was gazetted for a 60-day
consultation period from 13 August, after which the Privy Council will
consider the proposals for approval.
The Council decided that the premises retention fee for 2006 should rise
from £137 to £160, so as better to reflect the cost of activity
in that area. The level of the premises fee is a decision for ministers
in the Department of Health following consultation.
Organisation of public health campaigns
B. That support material for campaigns supported by
the Society should be in the hands of the members a reasonable time before
the launch
date [Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland]. (The explanatory paragraph
indicated that the branch’s concern arose from late delivery
of material for “Ask About Medicines” week. In its background
information, the Council pointed out that the planning and management
of the “Ask About Medicines” week campaign was the responsibility
of Medicines Partnership, which
had said that the delay was due to slow decision-making by the Department
of Health.)
Council response: Medicines Partnership reports that it is making every
effort to ensure that materials are available in good time for pharmacists
taking part in the 2005 “Ask About Medicines” week. The campaign
will run from 7 to 11 November and planning is well advanced. This year’s
campaign materials will include:
· 150,000 copies of an illustrated leaflet “Get to know your pharmacist” aimed
at people with low literacy and/or learning disabilities (sponsored by
AAH), available from September
· Downloadable posters and local action packs, available from the end
of July
· A new public relations toolkit, available from early September
· An updated second edition of the Health and Medicines Information Guide
and Directory, produced in partnership with the Association of the British
Pharmaceutical Industry, to signpost people to sources of information
about health and medicines.
In 2004, to support pharmacists taking part in the week, the Society
produced and distributed over 150,000 leaflets on the use of antibiotics.
For 2005, the Society will again be producing a leaflet for use by pharmacists.
This year’s topic will be sexual health. As we ensured last year,
the Society’s material will be available in good time for pharmacists
to use in their local activities.
Information on all of these resources, and how to access them, will be
available from the “Ask About Medicines” website (www.askaboutmedicines.org)
Recognising “veteran” members
C. That branch committees should be able to recognise
local veteran members of the Society in a manner which is suitably dignified
and in keeping
with the honour/status of the Society [motion from Leicester, Leicestershire
and Rutland branch].
Council response: The Council believes that an acceptable solution can
be found to take forward this motion. The membership team is exploring
options and costs for progressing this motion.
Review of structure and role of regions
D. That the Society, in consultation with the membership,
should review the structure, role, operation and functions of the regional
committees [motion from Bolton branch].
Council response: At the 2004 meeting of regional secretaries, the issue
of the future role of the regions was raised. Following this, in January
2005, regional secretaries were asked to discuss options for the future
of the regions with their committees. Although different views emerged
about the role and purpose of regions, the discussions did hit upon some
common themes. The core roles were identified as follows:
· Provide support to both encourage the reactivation of inactive branches
and help those branches experiencing difficulties
· Act as a link between the local branches and the Society
· Help facilitate two-way communication between the region and the
Council/headquarters (including members of the Scottish and Welsh Executives)
· Provide up-to-date information to members on current Society policies
The Council values the fact that the regional committees are constituted
to engage representatives from across the profession, including a member
of the Council as well as representatives from constituent branches,
the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, the National Pharmacy
Association, schools of pharmacy and the British Pharmaceutical Students
Association.
The Council endorses the role played by the regions in supporting consultations
with members. This has been an effective vehicle for key consultations
such as Pharmacy In A New Age and the new Royal Charter.
Following requests from the 2005 branch representatives’ meeting
and subject to decisions on the 2006 budget, work will be taken forward
to explore how to enhance the role of the branches in discussions on
policy matters.
These matters will be considered again
at the October 2005 meeting of regional secretaries, after which costed
proposals will be brought back to the Council. The decisions of the Council
on the implementation of its devolution review will need to be considered
before proposals are framed. Reduced fee for retired members
E. That the Society should permit permanently retired,
non-practising pharmacists who have been on the Register for 50 years
to remain members
for life at a much reduced fee [motion from Bolton branch, as amended].
Council response: As for Motion A, paragraphs 1, 4 and 5.
Retaining fellowship after leaving Register
F. That changes should be made to the Byelaws Section
III subsection 6 as regards fellows: “Members designated as fellows of the Society
shall be so designated only as long as they remain members.” This
branch requests the Council to give due consideration that changes
could be made to the said Byelaw so that fellows that resign from the
Register retain their designated fellowship [motion from Thames Valley
branch, as amended].
Council response: It is not possible for the Society to effect such
a change by amendment of a Byelaw because the term “fellow” is
a restricted title in law (Medicines Act 1968 Section 78(5)(a)). The
change would require amendment to the Pharmacy Act, which is unlikely
to be achieved with the current Section 60 Order under the Health Act
1999. The issue would need to be considered as part of a wider review.
Those fellows of the Society who are no longer practising and who wish
to retain their designation of fellow of the Society have,
of course, the option to be on the non-practising Register.
Effort to curb fee increases
G. That the Society should make best efforts in avoiding
the need to increase members’ retention fees, or at least keeping such increases
below the level of the Retail Prices Index, or any similar index in
widespread use at the time [motion from Gwent branch]
Council response: As for Motion A.
Retention fees by instalment
H. That, with respect to payment of annual retention
fees, members should be provided with the facility to pay their annual
retention fees in
instalments (eg. by monthly direct debit) [motion from Northumbrian
branch].
Council response: In terms of instalment payment, the position set out
in the background note remains unchanged. However, the introduction of
online credit card payment of retention fees means that members now have
an extra payment option. [The background note stated: “Applicable
legislation and Byelaws state that retention fees become due and payable
on 1 January each year [Pharmacy Act 1954 and Byelaws]. The applicable
rules require payment in full as a requirement for retention on the Register.
Members who do not want to pay the entire fee at one time are able to
spread payments by paying online using a credit card.]
The Council agreed to refer the issue of part-time fees to the Resource
Management Committee for a full exploration of the
issues associated with the retention fee for practising members who do
not work full time and for those on low incomes. [This paragraph relates
to a reference to part-time fees in the branch’s explanatory paragraph
but is not covered by the motion itself.]
Honoraria for branch secretaries
I. That, although we applaud the Society for allowing
honoraria to be granted to branch and regional secretaries, we feel that
a quorum of
fellow committee members should be given the discretion to financially
reward their secretaries with a fee that more fairly reflects the time
he/she has devoted to secretarial activities [motion from Northumbrian
branch].
Council response: The Council recognises that some branches choose to
award an honorarium to their branch secretary to acknowledge their contribution
to the life of the branch. Secretaries commit time and effort to help
ensure that the branch runs efficiently and are supported in their work
by fellow committee members and through the membership team at the Society’s
headquarters. The Council is not in a position to offer funding for honoraria
that would reward secretaries for the time and effort they spend but,
as a mark of recognition, agrees that the ceiling for honoraria should
rise from £200 to £300, providing that the branch has funds
for this purpose from within its grant allocation.
Overhaul of MPharm degree
J. That an urgent overhaul of the MPharm is required [motion from British
Pharmaceutical Students’ Association].
Council response: The Council recognises the need to re-examine the purpose
and content of the MPharm, which is now being undertaken as part of a
wide-ranging review of pharmacy education policy. As a key stakeholder
in these issues, the BPSA will be an important source of input into this
review and discussions are already in train between the Society staff
teams undertaking the review and the BPSA.
Prescription charge exemptions
K. That the current system of exemption from prescription
charges should be extensively reviewed [motion from British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association].
Council response: The Society has long and publicly argued that the
current system of exemption from and payment of prescription charges
is anachronistic, unfair and can deter some people from obtaining the
medicines that they need. Pharmacists can and do find themselves in the
difficult position of being asked to advise a patient on which medicine
they should forgo. The Society has repeatedly communicated this policy
position, which was updated in the paper produced in January 2005.
The situation for some patients is already becoming less equitable through
different countries in Britain taking different positions on prescription
charges and the Society will continue to keep this issue in close focus.
Review of registration examination
L. That preregistration examinations should undergo
a review. Instead, the preregistration year should focus on competence-based
learning
and objective structured clinical examinations and perhaps include
a practice-based examination [motion from Northamptonshire branch].
Council response: The Council recognises the need to re-examine the
purpose and content of the registration examination, and this will be
undertaken as part of a wider pharmacy education policy review. A five-year
programme of work will be presented to the Council for approval in December
2005.
As part of this, the use of and costs of objective structured clinical
examinations (OSCEs) and practice-based examinations will be considered.
Membership category for the retired
M. That an extra membership category should be created,
with an appropriate retention fee levied, to encompass retired pharmacists.
This extra
membership would be in addition to the practising and non-practising
categories that are now in existence [motion from West Metropolitan
branch].
Council response: As for Motion A, paragraphs 1 to 7.
More preregistration places
N. That the Society should endeavour to increase the
number of preregistration placements available to pharmacy graduates [motion from West Metropolitan
branch].
Council response: Through the preregistration division of the Education
and Registration Directorate, the Society is monitoring the availability
of preregistration places. While acknowledging there will be increased
demand as students graduate from new schools, it is encouraging to note
that supply has met demand to date.
In addition there has been a significant increase in the training grant
(in England) from £4,910 to £16,444 with equivalent changes
in Wales and Scotland. This has led to an increase in the number of premises
approval applications for preregistration placements. Finally, it is
encouraging to note the Department of Health is committed to creating
additional community pharmacy placements.
Common identification codes
O. That, in the interests of patient safety,
all primary packaging, secondary packaging and dose forms be marked with
a clear, identifiable, common code [motion from Lincoln branch,
as amended]. Council response: The Council agrees with the motion that it is in the
interest of patient safety that all primary packaging, secondary packaging
and solid dose forms (tablets, capsules) be marked with a clear, identifiable,
common code. The Society continues to work across a broad front to enhance
this and all aspects of patient safety in the use of medicines.
Ending sponsorship of branch meetings
P. That the Society should fund branches to enable
them to run a full programme without commercial sponsorship [motion from Teesside branch,
as amended].
Council response: The Society is in the process of developing guidance
on the use of commercial sponsorship for branches to help them manage
the use of sponsorship in a way that is appropriate and transparent.
Although some branches may not wish to make use of sponsorship, many
others find sponsorship a useful way of enhancing their programmes. Further
exploration of this issue will be brought forward at the branch secretaries’ meeting
in October 2005, where the draft guidance on sponsorship will be discussed.
As well as providing an administrative infrastructure to support the
branches, the Society invests £170,000 in grant funding to support
branch programmes. In 2003, a new system for allocating grant funding
to branches was adopted as a way of making best use of the available
funds. After two years, and following refinements to the process requested
by the branches, this system now works to the general satisfaction of
the branch secretaries.
All branches are eligible to apply for a core grant payment to be paid
between January and the end of June. Branches are also invited to apply
for additional funding to support their programmes, with payments made
in July of each year. Many branches have found that, by applying for
additional funding, they have received a significant increase in grants
to run their programme of meetings when compared to the old
pre-2003 system.
In addition, funding is also available to all branches to help send first-time
attendees to the British Pharmaceutical Conference. In 2004–05,
the Council also agreed to fund a team of trained facilitators to provide
support on continuing professional development to the branches.
Mandatory signing-in for locums
Q. That it should be made mandatory for all community
pharmacies to operate a locum signing-in procedure. This will enable
the recording of a contact
address and a home or mobile telephone number in order to expedite
the resolution of any subsequent problems involving the work of that
locum [motion from Brighton branch].
Council response: All pharmacies must have a system in place where they
are able
to identify the pharmacist responsible for provision of each pharmacy
service and show that an identifiable pharmacist is accountable for all
activities of non-pharmacists involved in the provision of pharmacy services.
This requirement includes locums.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal