| · SOPs (3)
· Professional regulation
· New pharmacy contract
· Oxygen services
· Compliance aids (2)
· The profession (2)
· Workbreaks
· Boots/UniChem merger
· The Society (2)
· HealthWatch
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Bogged down in bureaucracy
From Mr G. Southall-Edwards, MRPharmS, Barrister
Gordon Appelbe’s letter (PJ, 4 March, p264) highlights the problems
that I believe have developed principally from the fact that the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society is making far too much of the Shipman issue, which
of course is what is driving the current, near manic obsession with complaints
against pharmacists (no matter how insignificant) and with pharmacists’ past
convictions.
Like my colleague Gordon I, too, over the past 12–24 months have
advised one pharmacist after another as they have faced an inquiry initiated
by the Fitness to Practise and Legal Affairs Directorate. I can endorse
what he says about the inspectors and others simply being overloaded.
This year (compared with last year when internet renewals for remaining
on the Register seemingly avoided the requirement to declare convictions
for criminal offences) the number of cases I have dealt with has nearly
doubled and I doubt that I am the only one being consulted. I, therefore,
assume this to be an indication of a general increase in inquiries.
To add to this, there is an increasing tendency for the public, and those
advising them, to make complaints against pharmacists who have made dispensing
errors, in the belief that they will more easily compel insurers to pay
damages (which in fact never works, as once made, the complaint is investigated
by the Society, even if the damages demanded are paid out the next day).
Sadly, it seems from my experience, that the Society is wasting a considerable
amount of time, resources and money on the unnecessary investigation
of pharmacists who have declared minor matters from (often) many years
in the past. The effect, thereof, is an expenditure, wholly disproportionate
to the perceived risk and a great deal of unnecessary anguish for those
who become the subject of those investigations, merely because they have
had the honesty and felt the professional obligation (unlike some of
their colleagues) to clear the skeletons from their cupboards, many of
which have lain there harmlessly for many years. Like Gordon, I can testify
to the fact that almost all of my clients still have the “sword” dangling
over their head after 12 months and that (where the facts appear to be
such that the public might well need protection) many cases still have
a long way to go before they reach the Statutory Committee.
To add even more to this delay, 2006 has seen new Rules of Procedure
introduced for Statutory Committee inquiries, which look as though they
are to lengthen further the time from the initial decision to hold an
inquiry, to the point where a decision and outcome is reached.
The Society clearly has a duty to protect the public, uphold the image
of the profession and ensure acceptable standards of behaviour, but at
a time when it is already increasing retention fees substantially, its
inspectors no longer have the time to do routine visits. With professional
complaints from employers and the public at an all time high and the
Society’s Infringements and Statutory Committees overloaded, it
is apparent that the Society must decide how best to use its finite resources
and manpower to the best and most proportionate effect, which presently
it is clearly not doing. It is all well and good to quote from the Society’s
Council handbooks, Rules of Procedure (which of course can be amended)
and the Shipman enquiry, but Britain as a country and the Society in
particular is becoming bogged down in a sea of costly, disproportionate
bureaucracy, often arising from one-off accidents, disasters or crimes.
Some of the funds used could be far better spent directly saving lives
by treating illnesses from which people can be seen to be dying daily,
rather than against seeking to avoid risks that are merely perceived
as possibly yet to develop.
Graham Southall-Edwards
Tyrol, Austria
Wasted journey
From Mr P. E. Penson, MRPharmS
Today I made a 45-minute round trip to collect a parcel from the Post
Office. It turned out to be a continuing professional development pack
from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society containing a video (which I have
no means of playing) and a CD telling me how to begin recording CPD online
(which I have already been doing for six months). Can anybody tell me how
much of my retention fee was wasted on this futile package?
Peter Penson
Welsh School of Pharmacy,
Cardiff University |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal