Council's response to BRM resolutions

This report, approved by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Council at its August meeting, gives the Council's response to the resolutions passed at the Society's branch representatives' meeting on 25 May 2006 (PJ,10 June, pp697–700). [Readers may wish to refer to the branches’ explanatory notes and the Council’s background information (PDF 70K) published with the motions (PJ, 15 April, 455-460).]

Promotion of pharmacy medicines

A. That the Society should actively promote the status and availability of the class of medicines known as pharmacy medicines
[South Cheshire branch].

Council response: The Council will continue to promote the importance of pharmacists having access to a wide range of pharmacy medicines. We will encourage pharmaceutical companies to continue the trend of developing new pharmacy-only products and of moving existing prescription-only medicines to pharmacy status where appropriate.

We will ensure that our communications with the media emphasise both the special nature of medicines and the wide range of products that can only be supplied through a pharmacy.

Use of “pharmacy” title

B. That pharmacists are encouraged to refer to the premises from which they practise as “a pharmacy” rather than as a store or a shop
[Edinburgh and Lothians branch].

Council response: The Council supports the motion and continues to take every opportunity to promote the value to the public of obtaining their medicines from a pharmacy, which provides the unique combination of a regulated health care environment, offering access to the expertise of a pharmacist and a trained team, with a retail environment that promotes health and personal care. As pharmacists develop their role in public health, the value and importance of the pharmacy as a “normal” (as opposed to “white coat”) environment for health care advice will grow. Developments such as the integration of community pharmacy into NHS patient information systems will further enhance the public’s perception of the community pharmacy as part of the NHS family. The Society was instrumental in bringing the NHS “brand” into community pharmacy and will continue to work to support public understanding of the growing range of services and expertise on offer in their local pharmacy.

Council attendance fee

C. That the Council should seek the approval of an AGM, before increasing the ceiling on attendance fees payable to members of the Council
[Cheltenham and Gloucester branch].

Council response: The Privy Council has approved the amendment to the first paragraph of (3) of Section VII of the Byelaw as follows: “Members of Council shall be entitled to receive a reasonable fee, which shall be determined by the Council from time to time by resolution for each day or part of a day for attending any meeting of the Council or any meeting of a committee of the Council or subcommittee of such a committee or on such other occasions as the Council may from time to time by resolution determine.”

The Council now determines the attendance fees for Council members. There is no longer a defined ceiling to the amount. Each time the Council wishes to increase the attendance fee, the membership will be consulted, as the Council has already agreed. It would be open to the Council to decide to consult the members at an AGM as part of such a consultation.

For it to be made compulsory that the attendance fee be agreed by the AGM, a requirement would need to be incorporated in regulations under the Charter, and these would have to be agreed by the Privy Council.

Over recent years, the attendance at the AGM has averaged around 120 members. This is a small proportion of the membership and may not necessarily represent the breadth and diversity of the membership. One way of reaching more of the membership at an AGM would be to undertake a proxy vote. However, the Byelaws state specifically that there will be no proxy vote at an AGM. Any change to this position would need to be incorporated in regulations, which would have to be approved by the Privy Council. The cost of a proxy vote would be about £15,000.

Pharmacy technicians have a legitimate concern in the attendance fees of Council members. However they cannot vote at the AGM and therefore would not be able to influence the decision if the AGM were to be made the forum for deciding the attendance fees for Council members.

The Council is of the view that, as all future increases will be consulted widely with registered pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, there is no need to establish regulations to refer increases in the Council member attendance fees to the AGM.

Links with pharmacists in Iraq

D. That the Council should support and develop links with the Syndicate of Iraqi Pharmacists and schools of pharmacy in Iraq either directly or via international pharmacy bodies
[Birmingham branch].

Council response: The Council has every sympathy with the sentiments of the motion but cannot support it. It is true that Iraqi pharmacists work in extremely difficult circumstances. It is also unfortunate that pharmacists are in similar positions elsewhere in the world. Direct bilateral agreements with pharmacy organisations such as the Syndicate of Iraqi Pharmacists, are not within the scope of the Society’s work. The Council makes every effort to promote constructive links between the Society and similar overseas bodies but has taken note of the Foreign Office’s advice on travel to Iraq, which makes practical links between UK organisations and Iraqi pharmacists extremely difficult at present.

Affordability of BPC

E. That the Council of the Society should take measures to ensure that attendance at BPC is both affordable and attractive to the average pharmacist
[Manchester, Salford and Trafford branch].

Council response: The Conference Committee will discuss this resolution at its meeting in the autumn. While having sympathy with the spirit of the resolution, the Council needs to balance a number of factors that relate to the level of delegate fee for BPC.

Affordability is, of course, one important issue and a number of concessionary rates are provided for members, whose standard day rate is £210 plus VAT and three-day fee is £585 plus VAT. This compares with the full day rate of £290 plus VAT and full three-day rate of £795 plus VAT. In addition, members can avail themselves of the “super early bird” rate, which this year was available until 5 December 2005 and offered 30 per cent off the member rates. An “early bird” rate was also available until 10 July which offered members a day fee of £170 plus VAT and a three-day fee of £495 plus VAT. As well as these concessions, the Council offers each branch £250 to subsidise a first-time attender at the conference. MPharm third and fourth year students can attend on the Wednesday of BPC for £5 plus VAT.

The delegates’ fees are pitched higher than some scientific meetings but lower than others in the market. However, the Council is aware that cost is not the only issue that deters pharmacists from attending BPC. The free entry Sunday pilot in 2000 failed to attract significant extra numbers. The BPC strategy now aims to make the conference a “must-attend” event because of the quality and relevance of its programme to pharmacists in all sectors of practice and the opportunities that it gives for networking. The BPC strives to broaden its appeal to the profession as a whole as well as to the scientific community and, increasingly, to patients’ representatives and those involved in framing or implementing health policy.

We believe that, with the help of the many supporters of the conference, we are making considerable progress in creating an event that is truly inclusive and relevant. This requires significant investment, which has to be offset by delegate income, sponsorship and exhibition sales, if it is not to be borne by the Society and its members. This business strategy must be carefully managed so as not to affect the careful balance of the conference, which is first and foremost a showcase for pharmacy and an important umbrella event for all our stakeholders. Although BPC is not a predominantly commercial event, it is run with commercial disciplines and cost control, and runs at a significantly lower cost to the Society than it did in previous years.

This year, BPC held its first careers forum alongside the conference exhibition. For those members wishing to visit the exhibition and careers forum only, there was free entry.

We realise that even if there were no charge at all for entering BPC sessions there would still be a cost to members in terms of time, travel, accommodation and locum fees, and we are therefore looking at alternative ways of broadening the reach of the conference.

Governance of MPharm courses

F. That the Society should ensure that universities have clearly defined arrangements for professional leadership and governance of professional elements of registrable courses
[Glasgow and West of Scotland branch].

Council response: Leadership in a school of pharmacy is investigated as part of every MPharm accreditation visit. MPharm degrees must be delivered from within an academically autonomous unit with an appropriate number of registered pharmacists on the staff. It is true that not all heads of school are registered pharmacists, but most are, and those who are not can be strong advocates for the profession. Nevertheless, the issue of professional leadership in schools of pharmacy is a legitimate concern and we shall take it forward for consideration as part of the Society’s education reform programme, “Fit for the future”.

Using the skills of fellows

G. That the Society should investigate ways of better utilising the skills and experience of its fellows
[Glasgow and West of Scotland branch].

Council response: The Council values the exceptional contribution that fellows of the Society have made to the pharmacy profession and would be keen to explore ways to tap into this valuable resource.

As part of the Society’s preparation for the new Pharmacy and Pharmacy Technicians Order, a recruitment process seeking membership for the future statutory committees has been under way for several months. Information on the application process was published in The Pharmaceutical Journal in the hope that fellows and members of the Society would consider applying.

The constitution of the Benevolent Fund trustees is also under review and, although no decision has yet been reached, it has been proposed that some places on the board be designated specifically for fellows of the Society.

Following the BRM resolution, the Council proposes to consult fellows to ascertain how to develop the proposals for the future.

Control of pharmacies

H. That one pharmacist should always remain legally responsible for the professional activities of only one pharmacy, but certain professional duties can be delegated to suitably trained staff for a specified period of time
[West Metropolitan branch].

Council response: The Health Bill received royal assent on 19 July, becoming the Health Act 2006, and the Department of Health has begun to draft Regulations in which it will set out its detailed requirements. We have received a number of reassurances that the Society will be consulted on the Regulations. We will seek to ensure that the Regulations are drafted in such a way that they reflect Council’s policy as described previously (PJ, 15 April, p458, PDF 70K).

Standards of doctor dispensing

I. That the Society should approach the medical profession with the aim of ensuring good practice through collaboration between the professions, to promote and attain equally high standards for the dispensing of medicines to patients in the community
[Northumbrian branch].

Council response: The Council is committed to establishing good collaboration between the medical and pharmacy professions. We shall be raising this issue with the relevant medical bodies in order to explore the development of joint dispensing standards.

Involving non-practising members

J. That the Council should carry out a thorough review of arrangements made by learned and professional bodies for the continued involvement of their non-practising and retired members, to establish a fair, just and equitable scheme for such pharmacists
[Leicestershire and Rutland branch].

Council response: The Council remains committed to monitoring and reviewing the fee structure to ensure it is fair and equitable and also to reviewing on an ongoing basis the roles open to non-practising members, to ensure their continued engagement. The Council hopes to reflect the profession’s concerns and recognise in a suitable way the contribution made by non-practising and senior members.

Not all professions have a non-practising register. The decision to maintain one is a mark of the Council’s regard for members who have retired from practice. The Council’s position remains that it encourages non-practising pharmacists to stay on the non-practising section of the register and to continue to play active roles in the work of the Society. Many non-practising members participate and actively contribute, for example, through the branch structure, and the Council would encourage them to continue to do so.

The Council is interested in exploring the possibilities of working more closely with different groups of the Society’s members and will be asking this group of members for their views on how they could contribute further to the life of the Society. This will give non-practising members the opportunity to bring forward new ideas for the future.

Basis of premises fee

K. That the Council should re-examine the basis for the premises fee and consider whether instead of a single fee it should be based on the premises size, turnover, number of items dispensed, numbers of hours open, services offered or a combination of these factors
[Brighton branch].

Council response: The Society has for some time argued for a substantial increase in the premises fee. As a result of those efforts it has been agreed with the Department of Health that a consultation exercise on the size and shape of future fees should be carried out, and the Society is planning a series of discussions with the relevant stakeholder groups on these issues.

As yet, no decisions have been made on the future shape and structure of the fee, although a number of comments have already been collected. The arguments about a fee based on size and turnover have been put forward, as has the counter argument of a single fee, which has the benefit of simplicity and administrative convenience. Whatever structure is arrived at, the important point from the perspective of the Society is that the total fees collected should enable the recovery of the full cost of inspecting and regulating pharmacy premises and that there is equitable distribution of the burden between members’ retention fees and premises fees.

These discussions will continue and we will endeavour to involve branches in the discussions where possible. However, it must be borne in mind that any change to the basis of charging the fee would require change in legislation and could take a number of years.

Unused medicines as teaching aids

L. That there be an exception made to the regulations dealing with unused medicines that will enable returned medicines that are in date and have their original packaging intact to be utilised for teaching purposes
[Sunderland branch].

Council response: The Law and Ethics Committee will develop guidance for the profession about the practical and ethical issues that would enable returned medicines that are in date and have their original packaging intact to be utilised for teaching purposes. This guidance will be issued to the profession before the next branch representatives’ meeting.

Sponsorship of branch meetings

M. That the motion which the members of the Teesside branch put to the 2005 BRM and which was adopted by the meeting has not been implemented by Council nor has a satisfactory progress report been provided. The meeting therefore calls upon the members of the Council to implement the will of the members of the Society as expressed in the Teesside branch 2005 BRM motion — as they are honour bound to do if democracy is to prevail
[Teesside branch].

Council response: The Council recognises the genuine concerns at the heart of this resolution — and that of 2005 — about the relationship of pharmacists as health professionals with the pharmaceutical industry as sponsors of branch meetings. The Council also accepts that raising sponsorship can be time-consuming and challenging for branch committee members, who undertake the task as volunteers. However, the Council cannot implement the resolution because of budgetary considerations and because to do so would adversely impact on those branches and areas of Society activity that do make use of sponsorship to fund their programmes.

Ideally, the Council would be in a position to support financially all the aspirations of all the branches: where this is not possible, however, it is open to branches to pursue sponsorship as a way of providing a bigger programme for the members. If undertaken within a framework that ensures transparency and accountability, sponsorship is a useful way of supporting the work of the Society, and the Society draws on commercial sponsorship to support several areas of its activity. It is important that any arrangement follows best practice and the guidance produced for the branches in this regard reflects the recognised practice adopted throughout the organisation.

The Council has maintained the level of branch grant funding as a priority through successive challenging budget rounds and has agreed a new way of distributing funds to try to ensure that funds are being used to best effect.

Warning on NSAID labels

N. That the Council should advise the inclusion of the phrase “These medicines are anti-inflammatory and should not be taken with any other anti-inflammatory medicines” in the cautions section on labels for NSAIDs
[Harrow and Hillingdon branch].

Council response: This issue will be referred to the Practice Committee to consider the need for a warning label for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The committee will also involve the British National Formulary in the discussion about this resolution. If they agree that a specific warning is needed, the proposal will be brought back to the Council.

Validity of owing slips

O. That the Society should issue guidance on the validity period over which an owing slip should remain valid
[Harrow and Hillingdon branch].

Council response: The Law and Ethics Committee will develop guidance to the profession about the validity period over which an owing slip should remain valid. This guidance will be issued to the profession before the next branch representatives’ meeting.