| • White paper (5)
• Dispensing errors
• Insect bites and stings
• Community contract
• Locum pharmacy
• Pseudoephedrine
• The Journal (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
White Paper
Royal college will be a new body
From Lord Hunt
With reference to The Pharmaceutical Journal of 5 May (p512), I was
concerned about the content of your leading article entitled “Let
the Society be preserved”.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has both regulated and led the pharmacy
profession for many years. As pointed out in the White Paper “Trust
assurance and safety — the regulation of health professionals in
the 21st century”, and indeed, as the Society’s President
himself agrees, this dual functionality is no longer viable, when the
public expect, rightly, regulation to be transparently independent of
professional leadership. This is particularly the case as pharmacy practice,
welcomely, transforms to become considerably more clinically focused.
While leadership of the pharmacy profession is primarily a matter for
the profession itself, what neither I, nor the public, wish to see is
the demise of the pharmacy profession. While strong professional regulation
is important, so is strong professional leadership. Both will help ensure
that we all benefit more from the skills and knowledge within pharmacy.
Therefore, I would like to see both the General Pharmaceutical Council
and the proposed royal college as successful, prominent and influential
organisations.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Society has contributed immensely
to safe and effective patient care over many years. In developing a royal
college, I want to see the profession build on those solid foundations
provided by the Society, but the profession in its entirety should come
together to decide the best way forward, with the Society closely involved
in this process. But there should be no doubt that the royal college
will be a new body. Initial indications are that this is what much of
the profession itself wants. For example, this view was expressed by
participants at the recent King Fund event1 to discuss professional leadership
in pharmacy.
These are historic times for the pharmacy profession. I am sure that
the profession will want to grasp the opportunity of creating a royal
college — a body that will lead the profession in the 21st century.
The royal college will, I have no doubt, be at the forefront of helping
its members deliver innovative, good, evidence-based, safe care for the
public and patients.
Philip Hunt
Minister of State for Quality at the Department of Health
Reference
1. Professional leadership in pharmacy: exploring the case for a royal
college for the pharmacy profession. The King’s Fund; April 2007.
(www.kingsfund.org.uk)
Puzzled by Lord Hunt’s pronouncement
From Dr M. C. R. Johnson, MRPharmS
I am really puzzled by Lord
Hunt’s pronouncement in the PJ (5
May, p513) that he considers the Royal Pharmaceutical Society incapable
of evolving into the proposed royal college of pharmacy. Surely common
sense would suggest that the Society is the most likely organisation
to set up such a college, having been the natural epicentre for all pharmaceutical
activities within the UK for over 100 years?
Reinventing the wheel by
designing a royal college without reference to or involvement with the
existing Society would seem complete folly. In addition, where are “the
right people of huge calibre” currently hiding? Surely they
are somewhere within the existing professional body elected by the membership? If
that is not the case, such people are hardly likely to appear by magic
out of the woodwork.
Let the Society be confident of its achievements
and track record and take heart to provide the framework and blueprint
for the royal college. Max Johnson
Coggeshal, Essex
All pharmacists must feel the need to join
From Mr G. D. Johnson, MRPharmS
I would like to offer a few thoughts on the current debate on the future
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. I am one of the “past-their-sell-by-date” pharmacists
who stayed on the Society’s Register despite the increase in fees.
I spent 30 years of my career in the pharmaceutical industry, along with
many other pharmacists and have no regrets. Our careers did not depend
on our registration as pharmacists but, on our individual performances,
often against members of other disciplines. Like most of my pharmacist
colleagues, despite no financial incentive, I remained on the Register
in my own interest. It gave me professional status and access to insight
and information beneficial to my employment. Would I do the same if I
was commencing my career in the year 2007?
The Government, the ultimate employer of health care professions via
the NHS, has set out a strategy which puts the patients’ needs
at the centre of decision-making. Future development of the professions
and their activities must fall in line with this strategy and not just
benefit the professions. Registration of health care professions is now
in the hands of the Government due to the increased part in patient care
played by non-medical professions and the failure of the General Medical
Council to regulate the medical profession properly. Despite its efficient,
if sometime disputed, regulation of the profession, the Society has to
go along with this; so whither the Society?
Whatever emerges it has to be a wide umbrella organisation that encompasses
all the disparate interests in pharmacy. It is also paramount that it
should be in the interests of all pharmacists to join in whatever sphere
they work in, even if working overseas. This means an organisation that
has clout — political, financial and social. It must influence
education, research, contracts and employment matters, whatever issues
are vital to the development of pharmacy and pharmacists’ interests.
Should
it be like the British Medical Association, the most powerful trade union
in the country that does a brilliant job of furthering the
interests of the medical profession and commands a lot of public respect?
Probably not, because a trade union organisation would be anathema to
some organisations involved in pharmacy. It is also the right of every
individual to decide personally whether they wish to belong to a trade
union and not be pressured to do so.
Should it be a college? This sounds attractive but would it appeal to
all pharmacists, especially those with no academic aspirations?
Perhaps we should look at the structure of multinational corporations
that have an executive board with the individual companies running their
own affairs in line with central strategy and their executives reporting
to the board on those activities. The Society has already gone part way
down this road with the formation of national boards. Various colleges,
faculties, educational boards, financial committees, etc, could be an
integral part of this umbrella organisation. It would require financial
and central restructuring, and strong leadership. I am sure that leadership
is somewhere in pharmacy. Some of the 188 interested parties would need
to amalgamate their activities and interests but it would be in their
long-term interests to do so.
It is imperative that, whatever organisation we finish up with, all pharmacists
must feel the need to join so that we have the “critical mass” necessary
to ensure maximum influence at all levels on pharmacy development.
Gerry Johnson
Cheadle,
Cheshire
Questions to APTUK
From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
The Association of Pharmacy Technicians, UK (APTUK), an organisation
whose website (www.aptuk.org) proudly boasts the principle that it is “run
by pharmacy technicians for pharmacy technicians”, is making a
case for technician membership of a royal college of “pharmacy” [sic]
citing the arguments of representative democracy, public interest and “one
voice”. In my view, some hard questions need to be asked and answered:
• What is the current membership of APTUK, and how has this varied
in recent years?
• Are pharmacists allowed to join and, if so, how many are members?
• What is the constitution of the APTUK council and how does one
gain a seat on the council?
• How many pharmacists and how many lay members are on the APTUK
council?
• In general, how is the lay and the patient interest served on
APTUK?
• From which constituencies are the current members drawn and what
are the percentages? In particular how many members of APTUK are community
pharmacy technicians?
• How many community pharmacy technicians hold places on the APTUK
council, and what positions do they hold?
• What is the role of APTUK in negotiating pay and conditions for
technicians?
• What are APTUK’s plans in respect of providing representation
for technicians as individuals and for providing professional indemnity
insurance?
APTUK is making bold claims. We surely have the right to know how well
the organisation stacks up as truly representing its constituency and
the public interest before engaging.
Graham Phillips
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
| |
STEVE ACRES, vice president of the Association
of Pharmacy Technicians, UK, responds:
Mr Phillips appears to have
confused the role and constitution
of APTUK with those of a regulatory body. These are two distinct
and separate roles.
APTUK is strongly supportive of an inclusive approach to a royal
college-type body. As the only recognised representative body for
pharmacy technicians in
the UK it is actively pursuing this approach. APTUK recognises that its membership
is only around 10 per cent of the total number of pharmacy technicians in the
UK with membership open to, and drawn from, all areas of practice.
In the absence
of any other representative body, APTUK strives to provide professional leadership.
APTUK has never combined the regulatory and representative function and so
pharmacy technicians are not required to be members to practise.
One wonders how many
members the Royal Pharmaceutical Society would have if its role were purely
representative. APTUK is run by volunteers who freely give up
their time to run the organisation
and represent pharmacy technicians across the country.
The royal college of pharmacy, if that is what it is to be called, should
be focused on the need for patient safety and effective health care, not
on who
should or should not be members. APTUK firmly believes that an inclusive
college operating a joined-up approach to professional leadership must lead
to greater
cohesion and common standards in areas such as continuing professional development
and revalidation. This will, ultimately, benefit patients. Imagine a situation
where technicians gained their professional leadership from elsewhere and
there was a difference of opinion over, say, extended roles for pharmacy
technicians.
Surely this would be much easier to solve through a single professional leadership
body?
APTUK local branch meetings are open to non-members and offer a valuable
source of CPD to pharmacy technicians. Indeed, this is often the only source
of CPD
for community pharmacy technicians.
APTUK recognises that membership of the royal college is about individual
pharmacy technicians not organisations. That is why the questions posed in
the letter
are not really relevant to the central question — should technicians
be included or not?
For the record, the responses requested in the letter are shown below.
Current membership includes 1,193 full members, seven associate members,
19 fellows, 37 student members and 64 enrolled. The information recorded
does
not identify
the technician’s current work area and pharmacy technicians move between
different work areas. However, initial application for membership does ask
for areas of experience. The number of technicians with community experience
has
increased, as has the number of community pharmacy technicians attending the
APTUK annual conference.
Pharmacists are not allowed to join, but if they were registered with the
Society as a pharmacy technician, they would be permitted to become a member
of APTUK.
APTUK has a national executive committee and 12 national officers. The national
executive committee is made up of national officers and a representative
from each APTUK branch. Each APTUK branch elects its own representative to
the committee.
National officers are elected annually by the membership, with the exception
of the president. This is a two-year term of office elected by members in
a postal ballot. Any member can stand for any national office — they must be nominated by two members of APTUK.
There are no pharmacists or lay members on the APTUK “council” and
there is no direct input from lay persons or patients.
Members of APTUK are from the following pharmacy areas of practice: community,
hospital, industry, prison service, armed forces, primary care organisations
and academia. Some members work across more than one area but our data cannot
identify percentages in each.
One community technician is a national officer and she is the employment
relations officer (community).
APTUK has a working relationship with Unison, which comes to us for advice
and information, but we have no formal role in pay and conditions negotiation
for
pharmacy technicians.
APTUK represents pharmacy technicians as a body and has no current plans
to represent individuals. We have carried out some work, at the request of
members,
in relation
to indemnity insurance. This was in conjunction with a legal firm. We do
not provide indemnity insurance but have identified a company that does.
However,
APTUK is continually reviewing its strategy, this being particularly important
in the current climate of change. |
Where do the non-practising stand?
From Dr G. C. Jefferson, FRPharmS
I have noted the debate on the brave new pharmaceutical world of registration
and royal college bodies and how the latter might include the academic,
the scientific, the clinical and the technical. Where, in this panoply
of the erudite and accomplished, do the non-practising, currently cast
into the professional penumbra as “de facto” non-pharmacists
stand?
G. C. Jefferson
Edinburgh |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal