Council to look at continuity of preregistration training
A branch representatives'
meeting motion seeking to compel preregistration tutors to complete any preregistration training they undertake was withdrawn after the proposer was given an assurance that the Council and its Education Committee would look into the issue of ensuring the continuity of a trainee's preregistration year should a tutor be unable or unwilling to complete the training.
Gautam Paul (British Pharmaceutical Students Association) moved: “That
there should be a professional obligation for preregistration tutors,
included in the Society’s Code of Ethics, to take on and train
a preregistration student for the stated training period.” He said
that the BPSA had become aware of the case of a preregistration trainee
who was sacked without explanation about half way through the preregistration
year and was unable to complete the training period until the following
year.
That may not be a common occurrence, he said, but trainees need to be
assured that their training periods will remain at 52 weeks unless there
is a significant reason for instant dismissal. He suggested that the
preregistration learning contract, which both trainees and tutors have
to sign at the start of the year, could be made more robust so that tutors
and trainees are aware of the implications of taking on a trainee.
Michael Burden (Leicestershire and Rutland) said that he would like the
motion to be left on the table if that were possible. He could not vote
for it because it was unworkable but he did not want to vote against
it because the issues needed to be addressed.
Jan Basey (Manchester, Salford and Trafford) said that, from her own
experience as a preregistration tutor, she was unable to support the
proposed professional obligation. Preregistration tutors had their own
careers to consider. She herself had on occasion applied for and been
appointed to a position which meant being unable to complete a student’s
training. The training had not been compromised because another tutor
in the hospital had taken over. On another occasion she had been seconded
urgently to help another hospital that was in dire straits, and again
colleagues had helped out with her trainee.
Paula Wilkinson (Chelmsford) said that her branch would support an obligation
for a tutor to support the preregistration trainee in finding an alternative
placement to continue the training period, but it could not support the
motion as worded.
Heather Elliston (South East Metropolitan) said that as well as having
the opportunity to change jobs, a preregistration tutor might be unable
to complete a training year because of events such as illness, pregnancy
or injury. The motion needed to be reworded.
Mr Paul, in reply, said that he realised that the motion was unworkable
but the BPSA did believe that it was a matter of concern. Rather than
see the motion defeated and have nothing be done about it, he would prefer
to withdraw it on the assurance of the President that the matter would
be looked into by the Council and the Education Committee.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal