| • Supervision
• Pseudoephedrine (5)
• White Paper (3)
Letters to the Editor
|
White Paper
Creating a royal college of pharmacists
From Mr M. A. Walker, MRPharmS
A “Royal College of Pharmacists” must be the body created
from the transformation of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The majority
of pharmacists will concur, as this aligns the name of our future royal
college with surgeons, pathologists, physicians, anaesthetists, psychiatrists,
general practitioners, etc. Any name with pharmacy is best avoided since
this implies that a company could be a member. Pharmacies are represented
by organisations such as the National Pharmacy Association, the Company
Chemists’ Association, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating
Committee, Community Pharmacy Wales, Community Pharmacy Scotland, etc,
and representation of companies is not envisaged within the scope of
the royal college.
Steve Maddern asked why I
exclude technicians (PJ, 17 March, p297). Regulating
technicians will be passed to the General Pharmaceutical Council by the
Act, which will result from the recent White Paper. From that moment,
the Society will have no role in regulating technicians so the current
connection will end. Technician involvement in the Society, such as the
two members of Council, is by virtue of the Society’s regulatory
role, which the Government will terminate. I hope that a pharmacy technician
will be appointed to the governing body of the GPC when it is formed
and that the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK is seen as the technicians’ representative
body.
To satisfy the Society’s Privy
Council requirements
when we transform the Society into the “Royal College of
Pharmacists”, we must preserve a high entry level and ensure on-going
standards in both educational and professional terms. Entry must continue
to require a master’s degree in pharmacy, postgraduate training
and a final examination for all new members. For the royal college’s
professionally active members, the standard will definitely entail continued
professional development and periodic revalidation.
To avoid any doubt, someone with a National Vocational Qualification
does not satisfy the Privy Council’s educational criterion for
membership of an organisation applying for a Royal Charter. Please let
us move on from discussing technician membership of our proposed royal
college.
Creating a vision for a “Royal College of Pharmacists” should
be the first step in any metamorphosis and a vision must be elucidated
before we discuss function and structure. The PJ suggested that “the
Council and the profession should ask what they want a professional leadership
body to do.” (17 March, p296) but this is a latter step on the
transformation path. The Waterloo
group (PJ, 31 March, p357) just produced
a wish list. Without a clear vision many fruitless discussions on function
and structure will occur. That is why complex organisations usually have
a vision statement, which on the surface may appear blindingly obvious
to people within the organisation. However, the vision statement should
promote a common sense of purpose and direction. Sandra Gidley (PJ, 31
March, p364) shares her advocate
vision for the royal college. I do hope
that advocacy will be part of the agreed vision statement for a “Royal
College of Pharmacists”. However, many more visionary inputs are
needed before our vision is defined.
I support A. J. Rodgers’s suggestion (PJ, 24 March, p342) that
a website be created for members to discuss the transformation of the
Society. Nothing fancy is required. A simple crosscheck on membership
would allow members to post their opinions, without the time and space
restraints of the PJ. Would someone in Lambeth please own this and make
it happen in the coming days?
Mark Walker
Oxford
Technicians to seek membership of royal college body
From Mr S. P. Acres, RegPharmTech
I would like to comment on some of the issues raised by Anthony
Cox (PJ, 31 March, p367).
First, I would suggest it more than “highly likely” that
the General Pharmaceutical Council will take on the regulatory role for
pharmacy technicians. The wording in the White Paper makes it clear that “the
Government will seek legislative time to bring proposals to Parliament
to enable it to establish a General Pharmaceutical Council responsible
for the regulation of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians”. This
makes it a foregone conclusion in my view.
Secondly, Mr Cox has assumed that the Association of Pharmacy Technicians
UK will not review and revise its professional leadership role in light
of the strategic changes occurring in pharmacy. This is not so; no organisation
can afford to sit and look over its shoulder to determine its future.
I think the phrase “adaptability is second only to integrity” sums
this up perfectly. While history and experience undeniably play a major
part in any development, it is only by horizon-scanning and taking a
proactive approach that organisations such as APTUK can ever hope truly
to represent their members. APTUK has already accepted the need for an
internal strategic review and work has been under way in this area from
the day the White Paper was released.
The future detailed structure and function of APTUK is far from clear
since it depends on the outcome of the many discussions, debates and
decisions yet to be had. However, as regulation of pharmacy technicians
was a key objective of APTUK, so will be seeking pharmacy technician
membership of a future royal college. In our view, our members deserve
nothing less. APTUK recognises that to achieve royal college membership
for pharmacy technicians will require difficult decisions to be made;
negotiations will need to be conducted with tact, diplomacy and patience.
The association will continue, through dialogue, debate and logical argument
to seek achievement of its chosen key objectives.
Steve Acres
Vice-President
APTUK
It is the will of Parliament, not government, that prevails
From Dr C. E. Heading, MRPharmS
The proposed changes to the regulation of pharmacy are, we are told, to
protect the public interest. The over-arching body charged with this task
in the UK is the Westminster Parliament. How strange it is then, among
individuals and bodies so concerned with the public interest, that the
role of Parliament in endorsing the proposed changes is overlooked.
At the Royal Pharmaceutical Society briefing meeting held on 9 March, attendees
were told what would happen with regard to the proposed General Pharmaceutical
Council. The PowerPoint presentation, with accompanying handouts, explained
that the Carter committee would report, and legislation would be on the
statute book within 18 months. Regulations would follow over the next two
to three years.
There was no mention of the role of Parliament. There was
a brief mention from platform speakers that legislation would be laid
before Parliament as quickly as possible, but there was no acknowledgement
that
this could influence the outcome in any way. A similar stance was taken
by the minister addressing the Council Dinner on 27 March.
For the decisions
of Parliament to be pre-empted in this way and for the Society membership
to be almost misdirected away from an opportunity to lobby MPs on specific
issues, is not appropriate. Pharmacists are all committed to behaving
with probity and integrity, and the profession can only move forward
if there
is trust.
We are not suggesting that the new proposals are without merit, and
will be happy to contribute to the separate discussions concerning
a new professional
body. Nevertheless, in the light of the debacles over specialist medical
training and the new dental contract, it is clearly vital that there
is proper scrutiny of the GPC legislation at the parliamentary stage.
The
need for scrutiny seems to have been suggested
by the Society’s President (PJ, 31 March, p357),
albeit via discussion with the Department of Health. Lobbying for good
quality
sustainable regulation is a totally honourable
way for a profession to serve the public interest, and pharmacists
should be reminded of their right to do so. Ultimately it needs to
be the will
of Parliament, not government, that prevails. Christine E. Heading
President
National Association of Women Pharmacists |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal