The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7424 p506
28 October 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

Society's standards could be adopted by all independent prescribers

It would be appropriate for professional standards for pharmacist prescribers, which are currently being developed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, to be adopted by all independent prescribers, according to Robert Clayton, head of practice at the Society, in his response to a letter published in the BMJ earlier this month (2006;333:756).

The letter, from Jeffrey Aronson, president-elect of the British Pharmacological Society, and colleagues, suggests that an independent systematic review of the evidence relevant to prescribing and its teaching and assessment for graduates and undergraduates should be jointly commissioned by interested parties, including the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The review can then be used to propose a set of minimum standards and interested parties can hold an open symposium where the problems can be discussed and solutions sought. The letter follows an earlier editorial on poor prescribing by the same authors (BMJ 2006;333:459).

Responding to the letter, Mr Clayton said: “The Society is already in the process of a review of pharmacists’ undergraduate education, which will consider the position of independent prescribing. It is also looking at developing professional standards for pharmacist prescribers, and is in the process of holding a series of stakeholder meetings.”

Matt Griffiths, national prescribing and medicines management adviser at the Royal College of Nursing, pointed out that the Nursing and Midwifery Council has published standards for postgraduate training of nurse prescribers. These have been widely consulted upon with other health care professions, he told The Journal. In addition, Neal Maskrey, director of evidence-based therapeutics at the National Prescribing Centre, argues in an online response that the present and future learning needs of existing postgraduate prescribers, both medical and non-medical, also need to be considered. Both organisations are interested in exploring Professor Aronson’s suggestion.

Peter Rubin, chairman of the General Medical Council Education Committee, comments: “There is a growing risk that this debate will escalate in the wider media, where the underlying issues are not widely understood, with resulting alarm to patients and the public about their safety. It is essential that this perception does not become entrenched. The GMC therefore strongly supports the value of acquiring such evidence and will convene a meeting of interested parties to take this important matter forward.”