| · Agenda for Change
· Independent prescribing
· Emergency contraception
· Statistics (2)
· Medicines use reviews (2)
· Section 60 Order
· Education
· The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Society’s membership and registration functions should be split
From Mr S. S. E. Yuen, MRPharmS
On 20 April, The Times published an article implying there are quality
issues with the MPharm degree at De Montfort University. The Royal Pharmaceutical
Society issued a press release praising the university, which contained
the words: “No doubt standards were being maintained and were comparable
to those elsewhere in the sector.”
The Times raised the issue because of the university’s decision
to drop the pass mark to as low as 21 per cent (summer 2004) in one module
in order to disguise an otherwise high failure rate of some 50 per cent.
The university was put on probationary status by the Society a year ago
as a result.
As a graduate of the institution in question, I cannot help but feel
that my degree is now tainted in some way. Have all the students who “should
have failed” (Society press release, 24 May 2005) in 2004 been
improved such that they are now academically competent or have they been
removed from De Montfort? The press release (financed through our membership
fees) did not address this question. It is designed to “promote” the
interests of the profession in the public arena — a stated objective
in the Royal Charter. I have no doubt the Section 60 Order under the
Health Act 1999 is designed to address this type of issue.
The De Montfort example highlights the conflict of interest within the
Society between its regulatory function and the other self-promoting
functions. In my view, registration of pharmacists and premises through
regulation of practice standards is a function that should be taken up
by the Health Professions Council. Promotion of the interests of pharmacy
should be what the Society is about. Subscription to The Pharmaceutical
Journal and membership of the Society should be voluntary.
I call on all pharmacists to write to the Department of Health to support
splitting registration and membership, unless they want to carry on supporting
the proliferation of directorates at Lambeth High Street through ever-increasing
registration fees.
Eric Yuen
Walsall, West Midlands
| |
DAMIAN DAY, head of accreditation, Royal Pharmaceutical Society,
replies:
Mr Yuen asks whether or not De Montfort students whose marks
were raised
in summer 2004 are academically competent. Some are, and they remain
on the course, but others were not: they failed in 2005 and have left.
Students’ academic
competence was assured by the Society requiring an individual action
plan for each one whose marks had been raised: these were devised by
academic
staff and have been monitored by external examiners. The number of students
whose marks were raised that remain on the course is approximately the
number that would have passed on resit, had they been given that opportunity
(which they had not).
I do not agree with Mr Yuen that the Society “praised” the
university in its press release or that there is an apparent conflict
between a positive
statement and a negative press article dealing with an essentially historical
incident. What we stated was that, 18 months after the original incident and
12 months after the Society placed the university on probation, it was demonstrated
to our visiting team of accreditors that standards were being maintained and
our original concerns were moving towards a satisfactory resolution. We do
not condone what the university did in 2004 but it is right for us to
acknowledge
progress where progress has been made.
I am sorry Mr Yuen feels that the De Montfort degree has been “tainted” by
recent press attention but this is not due to the Society’s action. Far
from it: by acting promptly and decisively as we did, we have ensured that
the value of a De Montfort degree is maintained.
I do not agree with Mr Yuen that there is a conflict between regulation and
professional representation if those functions are properly delineated, as
they are in the
Society.
Also, I cannot see how this particular issue highlights a tension between
the two. The Society exercised its statutory regulatory function by placing
a university
on probation to ensure academic standards were being upheld. By acting as
we have done, we have maintained the gold standard for entry to preregistration
training. I would argue that this is an example of both sound regulation
and
professional advocacy. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal