|
• White Paper (3)
• MURs
• The profession
• The Society (2)
• MDS (2)
• Onlooker
Letters to the Editor
|
White Paper
I beg the Council not to waste the chance but to raise their heads
From Mr P. J. Curphey, FRPharmS
Despite the anguish of the past year and, in my view, the rudderless
behaviour of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council I am a
subscriber to the “we
are where we are” school of thought
(PJ, 10 March, p268).
The way forward has been signalled. Indeed, more than that, it has practically
been prescribed. Yet there is still no great appetite among pharmacists
to offer views of how we should proceed.
It became clear some years ago, at the end of a careful analysis, that
nearly all the work of the Society is capable of being interpreted as
being regulatory (particularly
in the context of the then description of a “modern regulator”),
although there are important exceptions surrounding the branches etc.
The activities of the proposed General Pharmaceutical Council are clearly
defined and will be further clarified over the next weeks and months.
My concerns are over the so-called royal college model of the professional
leadership body. It has been made explicit that this will not carry the
trade union connotations of a representative body but rather will be
representative of the profession and of practitioners in the practice
of their profession, just as the Society is today.
A medical royal college is usually a repository of academic excellence.
It attracts postgraduates and awards postgraduate qualifications, or
it may have a slightly different route to membership rather like the
Royal College of General Practitioners. Is it likely that we in pharmacy
can constitute that kind of college? Perhaps in tens of years we could,
or we could start now with, say, 100 members and hope. A model like this
would be unlikely to be sustainable unless there were a mandatory element
to membership. In those circumstances it would lose its raison d’être
of academic excellence.
What it seems to me we should be looking for, is an all-embracing, inclusive
institution (maybe it should be called the royal institute of pharmacy — although,
sadly, that abbreviates to RIP) which could attract all who have the
interests of the profession of pharmacy at heart. In that way we could,
at last, have something to offer pharmaceutical scientists, for example,
whose academy could sit well inside an overarching body. Some of them
are pharmacy graduates who see no need to register, but many of them
are not. We might also reignite interest among academics who have felt
undervalued within the
Society.
It might be, too, that those who feel swamped by the generalist, community
pharmacist majority could be given protected status within such an institute.
I include, of course, the vital group of technicians.
I sense an expression of fear among pharmacists who believe that support
staff have no place in our company. Is that because we have got used
in community pharmacy to using such staff in a mundane way, requiring
a “licking and sticking” pill counter instead of a strong
right hand (try doing half a dozen medicines use reviews without brilliant
support). If so, then we must think again.
The progress of hospital pharmacy and the acceptance of pharmacists in
the most senior positions within acute trusts owe much to the competence
and confidence of a strong supporting team of technicians. They are the
bedrock of a clinically oriented profession.
Or is it really that many pharmacists over the age of 35 do not actually
see themselves ever being part of such a clinically focused team but
as servants of the dispensing piece-work scheme called the NHS pharmacy
contract?
Let those who want representation of their grouping for employment purposes
form such groups. But those who have formed specialist groups because
they believed that the Society could not or would not do it for them
must be welcomed back into the fold in special compartments of the institute.
It would represent them all professionally.
I suppose I am saying, in summary, let them all come: representative
groups, specialist groups, employers and employees, pharmacists and non-pharmacists;
all in fact who have helped to build and will continue to help to build
our amazing profession. Whatever the outcome, it must be sustainable,
remembering it may be voluntary, and must support its staff, in both
salary and pension terms, who will be required both to service the new
entity and represent that entity externally.
We have a real opportunity to raise our gaze from navel to horizon for
a revelatory moment and grasp a change that has been offered to us on
a plate.
I beg the Council not to waste the chance but to raise their heads.
Peter Curphey
Past President
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
It is just as much about principles and concepts as material goods
From Ms S. A. Wilcox, RegPharmTech
Jonathan Buisson asks, in his Broad
spectrum article (PJ, 28 April,
p484), “What are you going to bring to the royal college party
for pharmacy?” and invites replies. First and foremost, both regulation
and professional leadership must be centred on the patient. This is applicable
to the whole of pharmacy in many areas, such as safety, service delivery
and research. Of course, the resources that organisations bring to the
table will help enable the delivery of professional leadership, but it
is just as much about principles and concepts as material goods.
One of the greatest benefits of an inclusive royal college-type body
would be partnership working. The processes involved in providing a safe
and effective pharmacy service can be compared to a chain, which is only
as strong as its weakest link. There is strong evidence that teams that
have a common goal, that work closely together and in which all understand
their part in the process, have fewer weak links. This is the primary
reason for believing that a single royal college-type body for the whole
profession is absolutely right.
So what will the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK bring to the
party on top of partnership working?
We are not a big association but we are committed and passionate about
what we do. None of our national officers is paid but they all, voluntarily,
put in long hours on behalf of the members they represent; such commitment
would represent a considerable gain for a college.
APTUK is not rich in monetary terms, and does not have any buildings
to bring to the party but it does have a bit of history, of which it
is proud and certainly would not like to forget. Members are something
that we do have, although I suspect that, like members of other organisations,
our members will want to see what is on offer before they join a new
body.
APTUK has a quarterly journal and a well maintained website and
these are its main communication media, allowing it to keep its membership
well informed. Our national officers are drawn from all over the UK
and from all sectors. They all have a significant amount of experience
and
expertise, both of which would be useful to a royal college for pharmacy.
As for activism, we certainly have plenty of that. We have an annual
four-day conference, which is open to pharmacists and is a successful
event, attracting some excellent speakers.
Perhaps another element, not previously mentioned but an important
part of any party, is reflecting on how successful it has been or how
it could
have been improved. APTUK is big on continuing professional development
and has worked with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to set up joint
systems for recording CPD. APTUK is in the process of training a network
of CPD facilitators and has been involved with the Centre for Postgraduate
Pharmacy Education in running a string of CPD training days across
the UK. It strongly supports the concept of CPD; now that is something
to
bring to the party. Sarah Wilcox
President
Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK
Say yes to stronger technician representation
From Mrs D. Thomas, RegPharmTech
Registered technicians working in community pharmacy do not generally
join the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK. So as a community technician,
I find it bewildering that it presents itself as the voice of pharmacy
technicians.
Joining a pharmacist-dominated body, such as the proposed royal college,
is unattractive because it will not help to preserve my distinct and
key role within pharmacy. Joining a robust independent organisation that
represents all support staff, with the confidence both to work with and
to challenge pharmacists and the proposed pharmacy regulator would be
attractive.
The key to our future success is not to dilute our representation but
to strengthen it.
D. Thomas
Bridgend,
Vale of Glamorgan
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal