| · Pfizer products (3)
· Prescribing
· Sugar-free medicines
· Drug misuse
· Pharmacy in Spain
· Pharmacy ownership (2)
· The Society (3)
· Superdrug
· Hiccups
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
We must work for the best possible result
From Dr B. P. Curwain, MRPharmS
Whether the Royal Pharmaceutical Society can retain its dual role of
professional representation and regulation remains to be seen. What we
can be clear about is that, at the least, it will be required to have
more separation between regulation and its other functions than exists
at present. A regulator now needs to be seen to be fair and impartial,
but always acting in the public interest. The fact that the Society has
consistently performed well as a regulator, albeit within the outdated
Pharmacy Act of 1953, will not mean that we can simply carry on as we
are. At the least, in my opinion, the Council’s functions will
have to be divided and a different board or council, with far fewer elected
and more appointed and lay members, set up to oversee regulation.
There could well be a lot to be gained by having the two functions under
the one roof, even if accountable to different overseeing bodies. What
pharmacists, the Government, and the public require is joined up regulation,
with consistency of standards and principles between the various health
professions, including medicine. Keeping the two functions in the same
building would seem to have advantages in terms of communication between
those carrying out the various functions and would also be less disruptive
to existing staff and almost certainly less costly than starting one
or the other function from scratch elsewhere.
There are opportunities here for Lambeth. Since it is acknowledged to
have a good regulatory track record, perhaps it might be in a position
to guide, lead and perform some of the regulatory functions of other
health professions. The General Medical Council has been heavily criticised
in the Donaldson report and I dare say it would be happy to regulate
the medical profession under a modern framework!
So, what of the Society’s role in professional support? There is
a huge amount of valuable and skilful activity now going on at Lambeth
and this needs to be supported and nurtured. As Malcolm Brown wrote in
a Broad spectrum
article (PJ, 14 October, p446), the College of Pharmacy
Practice is a body that could be adapted and perhaps brought back clearly
within the Society in the future. Many believe that its impact has not
been as great as was hoped. Maybe its title is slightly restrictive.
Pharmacy is a science-based profession; that is a major strength and
the development of its underlying science and academic base as well as
its practice needs to be addressed.
We know what we need: good regulation and strong professional leadership
and support. The latter does need further development. The former needs
modernisation, which will be achieved once the Section 60 Order is passed
and the Regulations under it are written. We need to understand also
that the regulatory function will be accountable to Parliament through
the Privy Council, and that it can ultimately call the shots. Our task
now is to work closely with all parties concerned to get the best possible
result for the public and for us.
Although I am a member of the Society’s Council, these are my personal
views.
Brian Curwain
Christchurch, Dorset
Comments on NICE do not reflect expertise available within the profession
From Dr D. A. Hughes, MRPharmS, and other members of the NICE Technology Appraisal Committee
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is included as a consultee of the National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and, as such, has opportunities
and indeed a responsibility to comment on guidances and technology appraisals
that are in development.
The Society’s responses to 11 guidances and appraisals are posted
on its website. Given the importance of NICE recommendations, and the
implications they have for pharmacists, it is disappointing how superficial
are the comments given by the Society. The Society represents pharmacists,
who are considered “experts in medicines”. It is therefore
surprising that the Society’s response to the guideline on statins,
for instance, is so inadequate and narrow, being limited to discussion
about the availability of over-the-counter simvastatin. Similarly insufficient
is the comment made on the guideline on dyspepsia: “The RPSGB is
pleased to see that the role of the community pharmacist has been considered
in the Guidance.” No comments at all are given to the epilepsy
guideline. There is more detail in the Society’s letter to the
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency arguing against the
reclassification of Germoloids HC Spray from P to GSL.
These comments on draft guidelines do not reflect the level of expertise
available within our profession. There are many individuals who are able
to provide expertise in pharmaceutical, pharmacological, clinical, policy
and economic issues. We believe that the Society is letting its members
down by not consulting with them to provide proper scientific input.
These limited responses can only contribute to reducing the respect in
which pharmacists are held in the clinical and policy arenas. Pharmacists
are undoubtedly “experts in medicines” but unless we present
ourselves as such to the outside world, our profession will never be
respected in this way.
Dyfrig Hughes
Centre for Economics and Policy in Health,
University of Wales Bangor
Rachel Elliott
School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences,
University of Manchester
Katherine Payne
North West Genetics Knowledge Park,
Manchester
Technicians must rise to the challenge of national boards
From Ms L. Morgan, RegPharmTech, and Ms C. Hunt, RegPharmTech
We welcomed your upbeat
leader (PJ, 7 October, p412) announcing the start
of the election process for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s new
national boards and in which you encouraged pharmacists from a range of
backgrounds to consider putting their names forward for nomination. The
same, of course, applies to registered pharmacy technicians living in England
and Wales, who are eligible to stand for nomination for places on the English
and Welsh national boards.
Pharmacy technicians as a professional group have come a long way in the
past few years since the opening of the voluntary register. More than 4,000
pharmacy technicians are now demonstrating their commitment to maintain
high standards of professional practice through registration with the Society.
There are places for two pharmacy technicians on the Society’s Council
and 10 pharmacy technicians (plus two in reserve) have been appointed to
the Society’s new fitness-to-practise committees in anticipation
of statutory regulation. The inclusion of pharmacy technicians within the
English and Welsh national boards means that there is a further opportunity
for pharmacy technicians to influence and shape the development of pharmacy.
We urge our pharmacy technician colleagues not to let this opportunity
slip by and to rise to the challenge.
Lesley Morgan
Corinne Hunt
Members of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal