| · PSNC conference
· NHS fraud
· The profession
· Pfizer products
· 100-hour exemption
· Section 60 Order
· Registration
Letters to the Editor
|
Section 60 Order
Why the New Zealand model will not work in Great Britain
From Dr. D. J. Temple, FRPharmS
The news feature on the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand (PJ, 28
October, p509) highlighted the success of the role split that was forced
upon that body two years ago and asks whether the same could happen in
Great Britain. I believe an important factor in the British scene has not
been considered by your reporter, that is, the influence of the NHS as
the major employer (either directly or indirectly) of most health care
professionals in this country.
Since the late 1960s, via various NHS Acts, successive UK governments have
accepted their responsibility to maintain the competence of health care
professionals through the provision of continuing education. Hence pharmacists
and others have become used to free continuing education offered by the
Centre for Postgraduate Pharmacy Education and similar organisations within
the NHS.
This is clearly not the case in New Zealand, where the Pharmaceutical Society
had established itself in the 1990s as a major provider of continuing education
through its subsidiary body, the New Zealand College of Pharmacists. Currently,
membership of the PSNZ brings automatic membership of the college and the
obvious benefit of access to quality continuing education courses. This
is generating income for the PSNZ in a way that would be difficult to for
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to achieve here.
“Pharmacy self care” is another example of the PSNZ seizing an
opportunity to provide (for an up-front fee) quality materials and full support
to
pharmacists seeking to offer a service to their clientele. This, again,
was developed in the previous decade but it is still a viable and tangible
benefit for members of the PSNZ.
The analogous “Pharmacy healthcare scheme” in the UK relied
totally on NHS funding to provide a “free” supply of leaflets
to community pharmacies, but largely lacked the additional training and
support provided at cost in New Zealand. Pharmacists in Great Britain now
expect to source leaflets via their primary care organisations, leaving
the Society out of the loop.
There are other examples of the PSNZ developing practical solutions in
support of their members before the split, which encouraged 90 per cent
of its members to retain their membership. In the UK other bodies have
filled these gaps. This throws into question the percentage of pharmacists
who would voluntarily retain membership of the professional arm of the
Society, should it decide to split along the same lines as the PSNZ.
David J. Temple
Welsh School of Pharmacy, Cardiff |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal