| · Pfizer products (2)
· Fitness to practise
· The profession
· Rural practise
· Retention fees (2)
· The Society (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Now is not the time to disengage
From Mrs D. M. Eustace, MRPharmS
It would be understandable if many pharmacists were to disengage from
any debate about the profession at the moment. With the pressure of increasing
prescription volume in the community, Agenda for Change, public and political
expectations and decreasing resources, it is easy to see why morale could
be dwindling. Indeed the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s own research
on workforce satisfaction, and reported at BPC 2006, shows that this
is a reality.
The new English National Board will give pharmacists new impetus to press
the case for pharmacists’ contribution to the local health economy.
Key answers here are independent prescribing, pharmacists with special
interests and pharmacists’ representation on both primary care
and strategic health authority boards.
As a grass roots pharmacist, working in both in community, primary care
and as a member of a primary care trust professional executive committee,
I can see at first hand both the problems and potential solutions.
Under the “old” ways of commissioning services, primary care
organisations have fallen into ever deepening financial difficulty. We
all recognise the need to use other health care professionals — not
just GPs — to provide essential services, either through redesigning
existing, or through development of new, services. This will help balance
the books as well as providing the best essential services for any local
area. Pharmacists should be an integral part of this new method of commissioning
in primary care, from prescribing through to delivery. The board must
provide a strong voice for the varying sectors of our profession.
To minimise the threats and maximise the opportunities it is imperative
that members remain involved with the future of their professional body.
Within the next few months, and following a thorough review of relevant
issues, the Council will finally make a decision whether or not the Society
should split. However, it is the members who must enjoy the final say.
We, the members of the Society must remain engaged with the debate to
ensure that the right decision is reached for the future of our Society.
Pharmacy is at a critical point in its history. There are many decisions
to be made, but each individual pharmacist must take responsibility for
the future of our profession, and remain engaged. Let us not abdicate
our responsibility to own our own future. Now is not the time to disengage.
Davan Eustace
Member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council
English National Board Election Candidate
How many fellows have we lost?
From Dr W. F. H. McLean,FRPharmS
I was saddened to read that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society may be “deprived
of the company” of yet another distinguished, erudite supporter
of the profession (Bruce
Rhodes, PJ, 11 November, p574). In the same
issue (p576), the “Workforce
update” does not detail the
number of fellows who have left the Register in each of the listed years
(2003–06). Can these figures be made available, please, so that
the membership can make a more informed judgement on the effects of the
Society’s Council policies over recent years?
W. F. H. McLean
Waterlooville, Hampshire
| |
ANDREW GARDNER, head of registration at the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
The number of fellows on the Register
is usually
published as
part of the “Annual registrar’s report”, sent to all
registered members and fellows. Over the past few years the reports
show a steady decline in the number of fellows at about 10 per cent
per year.
The total number of fellows reported as no longer on the Register
includes those who die or who are removed from the Register. The figures
for those who are recorded
as having left the Register voluntarily are: 1 January to 31 December 2003,
19; 2004, 47; 2005, 81; and 2006 (to date), 59.
There are 711 fellows on the Register to date. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal