| · The Guild (2)
· Gender
· Prescriptions
· Medicines use reviews (3)
· Supervision (2)
· Skin cancer
· North East London LPC
· Birdsgrove House
· The Society (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
North East London LPC
More important issues to address
From Dr. A. M. Tweedie, FRPharmS
Some of the letters in these columns relating to the complex North East
London Local Pharmaceutical Committee and Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating
Committee dispute and the office of the President of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society are, in my view, superficial. Little in-depth research appears
to have been done on the context, as well as on the content of the Bates
report. One could be forgiven for thinking that other agendas may be
running. For every difficult and complicated question, there is an answer
that is simple, easily understood and wrong.
Edward Mallinson proposes
that the profession be “beyond criticism” (PJ,
22 October, p512). The concept is vacuous — criticism is the prerogative
of the critic. Andrew Burr asserts that the Bates report threatens to
undermine the profession’s leadership (PJ, 8 October,
p439 PDF (120K)). It is far from axiomatic that a person should resign
because of ill-founded
assertion. The Salem witch hunts taught us the foolishness of relying
upon such allegations. Mariam
Khan harangues the NEL LPC for “bringing
about” the Bates review (29 October, p548). The review was triggered
principally by a structured complaint from the Company Chemists’ Association,
whose motivation needs to be questioned. The letter also claims to know
the “judgement of thousands of members on the actions of their
president”. On what statistical evidence does she make this claim?
This public service based profession must make its judgements on factual
evidence and accuracy.
Some members will remember the “Scribbling diary” case, when
the late Bernard Silverman (superintendent pharmacist, Boots the Chemists)
was summoned before the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Statutory
Committee, declared guilty of misconduct and found unfit to be on the
Register. This was just before being elected a Fellow, when it was known
what the case result was. He was later elected President. There was no
clamour for his resignation.
Following a report from the NHS Litigation Authority in its “level
A1” assessment, one primary care trust was recently described as
having failed in its “control of inspection and records management”.
There were no public announcements, no leadership undermined and no publicity.
Correct administrative action redressed the weakness. This is an example
of how others deal with administrative and procedural problems in a dignified
way.
Having studied the Bates report’s context and attendant documentation
in detail, serious questions do arise:
· The letter of complaint, principally from the Company Chemists’ Association,
was presented anonymously and characterised as being from 87 contractors.
This now proves to be 11 contractors with 80 contracts. There were actually
eight CCA members, one
Co-operative member, one member of the Association of Independent Multiple
pharmacies and one independent. Can Bates tell us, I wonder, what steps
were taken in the interests of good governance to establish the correct
number and nature of the complainants?
· Elements of the complaint are several years old. Why are the CCA
members only now registering this complaint, especially when they themselves
have been members of the NEL LPC at all material times?
· Why did the CCA members of the NEL LPC never formally complain
to the NEL LPC? Why did the CCA bypass the LPC and PCT to go to the strategic
health authority?
· Was the purpose of the complaint to involve the SHA in the dispute?
The LPC had already offered independent arbitration.
· The NEL LPC is criticised for not holding an annual general meeting
but it held six meetings open to all contractors throughout the year.
· Why was the full LPC response not published by the SHA simultaneously
with the Bates report?
These are only some of the issues which cause one to question the content
and handling of the report.
Administration is notoriously easy to criticise. All organisations have
administrative flaws at some stage. The NEL LPC has remedied its. The
real criterion of effectiveness is through outcomes. The report is silent
on this crucial measure. The NEL LPC has an enviable record of achievement
for their contractors, including two ministerial visits recognising and
applauding their work.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council is right to stand firmly
with the President; there are vastly more important issues to address
in this time of radical reorganisation within the NHS.
Allen Tweedie
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
| |
COLIN BALDWIN, chief executive at the Company Chemists’ Association,
responds:
This is a significant and important time for community pharmacy
and for local pharmaceutical committees in particular. Given the fundamental
and ongoing changes in the NHS, the new pharmacy contract and the
growing importance of local negotiation for services, we firmly believe
that
LPCs are central to the successful integration of community pharmacy
into the
NHS as a service provider. Primary care trusts and commissioners need
to have absolute confidence in the way in which all contractor bodies
conduct themselves and we at the CCA will do all we can through our
local representatives to help LPCs successfully represent all community
pharmacy
contractors. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal