The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7393 p347
25 March 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

· EPS
· Public health
· Supervision
· Assisted dying
· Paracetamol
· FDCs
· Branded prescribing
· Methadone mixture
· Incontinence products
· CPD
· The Society (2)

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Lack of hospital pharmacists standing in Council election

From Professor R. Fitzpatrick, MRPharmS, and Mr A. West, MRPharmS

We are writing in response to your editorial (PJ, 11 March, p282) in which you expressed surprise at the lack of hospital pharmacist candidates standing for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council. Unlike you, we are not surprised that there were no hospital pharmacists, for these reasons:

· Being a member of Council involves a significant time commitment and, indeed, a current member of Council has decided not to stand again for exactly this reason. The NHS is under considerable pressure and hospitals in particular are feeling embattled as the Government’s strategy for the NHS is to move services and resources out of hospitals and into primary care. Senior hospital pharmacists are increasingly focusing their efforts on resource, service and medicines management issues in a rapidly changing environment. In addition, we are still dealing with the chaos caused by Agenda for Change.

· The unfortunate delay in the Foster review has meant less clarity on the agenda for the Society’s Council.

We note that out of over 40,000 pharmacists, a total of only eight candidates put themselves forward for five seats, which indicates a reticence amongst the wider membership, not just hospital pharmacists, to serve on Council.

At last year’s election, the then vice president, who is a well-respected hospital pharmacist with a national profile, stood for re-election, but was unsuccessful, despite receiving in excess of 3,000 votes. This supports the point we made last year that there should be a reserved seat for hospital pharmacy on Council, so that having a balanced view on the profession’s governing body, is not left to chance.

We hope that Council heeds this when agreeing the membership of the national boards.

Ray Fitzpatrick
Chair
Hospital Pharmacists Group
Tony West
President
Guild of Hospital Pharmacists

Time taken to resolve infringements cases

From Dr. G. E. Appelbe, FRPharmS

I am grateful for the response to my letter (PJ, 4 March, p264) from Jo Raffaitin, head of investigation, of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Fitness to Practise and Legal Affairs Directorate. This must be the first time that the Society has been so transparent as to explain to members its current enforcement procedures. It will come as no surprise that I am aware and somewhat critical of them, hence my original letter.

However, Mrs Raffaitin misses the main point in my original letter, which was the question of delay in dealing with offences immediately following a formal, legal, taped interview and the subsequent consideration of the case by the Infringements Committee. I have advised several pharmacists in the past 12 months at their taped interviews and at the end of each they were informed that the Infringements Committee would consider the matter. None of them has yet heard anything from the Infringements Committee, although one interview was seven months ago and another 12 months ago. The Society, as an enforcement and disciplinary body, is beholden to uphold the principles of law and this it has done admirably for many years, but no one can justify a delay of 12 months in keeping a pharmacist waiting for a committee decision. Increase in workload or a lack of resources is no excuse for denying justice.

Gordon E. Appelbe
London

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Continuing professional development)