| · IPF
· GHP (2)
· BPC
· Medicines use reviews
· Drug classification
· Alternative therapies
· Controlled drugs
· North East London LPC (3)
· The Society
· Pharmacists in the media
Letters to the Editor
|
North East London LPC
Comparisons in Bates reports were wrong
From Mr S. S. Kalsi, MRPharmS
The North East London Local Pharmaceutical Committee and Pharmaceutical
Services Negotiating Committee dispute has concrete foundations. These
question the conduct of the PSNC and its commitment to unanimous or near
unanimous resolutions passed at an expensive participatory event that
is the annual LPC conference. The withholding of levies was only ever
meant as a lever to resolution. Since then, offers of significant sums
of money (no strings attached) leading to binding mediation have not
been adequately answered.
The criticisms of the LPC in the Bates report address, in the main, constitutional
matters. Though independent the report is not flawless or balanced, in
my view, because it is an opinion of one man who was unfamiliar with
the subject matter and who was attempting to benchmark an LPC against “gold
standards” which do not exist. For a fair comparison maybe he should
have compared the conduct of the LPC against that of other LPCs rather
than an imaginary “gold standard”.
However, the criticisms, some accepted and some contested, have nevertheless
now been addressed. Two-way communication with contractors in the said
period has been achieved by holding six forum meetings per year within
each primary care trust area. (It is interesting to note the minimal
attendance at these meetings by the complainants and their absence at
the recent well-publicised annual general meeting.) The recommendations
of the report have been addressed in essence since its publication and
so NEL LPC is proactively learning and responding.
The issues for criticism as the first five breaches of the LPC constitution
are essentially relating to:
· Not holding an AGM How many LPCs hold AGMs? And how many contractors
attend AGMs where they are held?
· Not circulating accounts to contractors How many LPCs circulate
accounts to their contractors?
The next three alleged breaches of the constitution relate to the dispute
with the PSNC. These are the following:
· Failure to make contributions to the PSNC This action is backed
by local contractors and I do not accept this as a breach of the constitution
because there is a valid reason for it.
· Not seeking guidance from the PSNC We do not need it since we
have coped with all the queries ourselves. This should be a point of
credit because after three years the majority of contractors are even
today supporting the LPC. This is not a breach of the LPC constitution.
· Not notifying changes in the LPC membership to
the PSNC Since
we are in dispute and since the PSNC terminated the relationship, why
should the LPC notify changes?
All of these last three criticisms are rejected by the LPC.
The President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is a paid employee
(secretary) of the NEL LPC. Could someone explain why the attacks are
being personalised? And why to one side only? We have a President with
great vision and a lifetime of advancing the profession of pharmacy.
In my view, it is these personal attacks which are bringing the profession
in disrepute.
Why has the PJ, which listed the LPC members (PDF 70K) in the
edition of 24 September (p365) as part of its initial coverage of the
Bates report
allowed the
names to be listed again in a derogatory letter (PJ, 29 October,
p548)? The portrayal of hardworking and dedicated professionals as some
sort
of gang is a disgrace from professionals trained in objective analysis
of evidence.
Surinder Singh Kalsi
Member
North East London Local Pharmaceutical Committee
Drawing a parallel
From Mr R. Blyth, FRPharmS
Andrew Burr (PJ, 8 October, p439 PDF (120K)) and again in a
response in the letters pages (PJ, 15 October, p480) calls for
the resignation of Hemant Patel as President of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society.
Mr Burr (PJ, 15 October, p480) draws a parallel between the
Puxon report on his personal behaviour as a member of the Society’s
Council (PJ, 4 October, 1997, p544) and the Bates report (PDF 70K) on the North East London Local Pharmaceutical Committee (PJ,
24 September, p364). This is, in my view, inappropriate, although I accept
that Mr Burr, because of his
personal involvement in and response to the former case, sees it otherwise.
The facts of his case and those of the NEL LPC are materially different.
The Puxon report was, as I have said, on his personal behaviour as a
member of the Society’s Council. The Bates report is on the behaviour
of a group of people, namely a committee. The Puxon report was of direct
concern to the Society. The Bates report is of indirect, if any, concern
to it. In the Puxon report, Mr Burr was found to be guilty of “grossly
improper abuse of his position on the Council and conduct of the gravest
impropriety” (PJ, 4 October, 1997, p544). No such finding is made
in respect of any individual in the Bates report.
Mrs Puxon was a distinguished QC and a former Privy Council nominee member
of the Society’s Council.
Robert Blyth
Milton Keynes,
Buckinghamshire
| |
ANDREW BURR responds:
Contrary to what Mr Blyth may believe,
the Puxon inquiry was not called to investigate my personal behaviour
as a
member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council. In
fact the record will show that I declared an interest in the electronic
transfer of prescriptions and left the room on each occasion that
the matter was discussed. Moreover, the evidence to support the
Puxon
findings has never been made public and so Mr Blyth can only draw
his conclusions from the immediate aftermath of the report to the
Society’s Council. I have never responded to the accusations
made that day as I took the decision to resign at the start of
the meeting. Clearly Mr Blyth believes resignation implies guilt,
but
I can assure him that honour and integrity coupled to a real passion
for one’s chosen profession dominated my mind on that day.
If I was guilty of anything it would be my utter naivety to believe
that we all served this profession wholeheartedly. My decision
to resign was solely because the Council had fractured and its
focus
was consumed by the Puxon report rather than the key health agenda.
If I had stayed, we would have had months of arguments and debate
on issues that, frankly, in the real scheme of the health agenda
simply did not matter. To me, my resignation was a price worth
paying for the profession to move forward.
Mr Blyth misunderstands the situation we now find ourselves in
and clearly fails to see the parallels that can be drawn. Unlike
the Puxon report, we have a report,
commissioned by a Strategic Health Authority, which has been published in full.
The evidence to support the findings have been published in full. The officers
of the North East London Local Pharmaceutical Committee have been found wanting
in respect of governance issues. The individuals have accepted the criticism
made of their personal behaviour in the report.
Contrary to Mr Blyth’s proposition, Hemant Patel was criticised in the
report. As LPC secretary and treasurer he was a paid officer of the LPC. The
content of the e-mail sent by Mr Patel to Trevor Hadley on 15 November 2004 is
included in Appendix 2 of the Bates report. Moreover, the report states in Appendix
8, paragraph 16 that “the LPC secretary (Mr Patel) has recognised and
accepted that
e-mail correspondence from himself to Anthony’s Pharmacy during November
2004 was inappropriate, not in accordance with recognised professional practice
and does not accord with his capacity as an LPC Officer representing contractors”.
As an Officer of the Society, the President is under even greater scrutiny under
the code of conduct than ordinary members of Council like I was. The code of
conduct clearly and unequivocally states that “in the same way that Council
members cannot divest themselves of their role in such capacity in matter concerning
the profession, an Officer cannot, so long as he holds that office, divest himself
of his status as an Officer of the Society”. It is evident the President
believes he can separate his role as an Officer of the Society from that of
LPC Secretary to the NEL LPC and ride out the storm. More importantly the Council
appears to be supporting this position.
I will say again, the President’s position is untenable and now the Council
finds itself sharing the same mantle. I cannot understand why the President does
not stand aside when he knows that further aspects of the case are under investigation — namely
the events surrounding the appointment of the LIFT pharmacy consortium in Newham.
The President has become the story and he should separate his position as President
from the unravelling events and so extricate the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
from the issues involved. |
“Melt down” — an understatement
From Ms A. Anwar, MRPharmS
I am in agreement with Edward
Mallinson (PJ, 22 October, p512) that if
we are to assume that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council
is backing the President’s hesitation to stand down, he is being
ill-advised and in fact it confirms the flaws in the running of the Society
by its Council members. After all, he is not being asked to leave the Register
but to rethink his strategy in running the Society as current President.
It seems many people are hiding behind his shadow and he is getting a lot
of blame for the combined errors of others beside himself, although unfortunately
this type of responsibility comes with the job description. Mariam
Khan (PJ, 29 October, p548) nicely pieces together the information and concludes
that pharmacists should be bright enough to be individually accountable
for their own actions and not follow others. It is beyond belief that this
has gone on for so long and to say that there will be a “melt down” at
the Society seems rather an understatement with the way things are going.
Can we salvage this mess? The jury is out.
Anila Anwar
London
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal