White Paper
Employee community pharmacists not represented in new group
From Mr R. Gartside, FRPharmS
We must all welcome the announcement of the Professional Regulation and Leadership Oversight Group (PRLOG) and hope that it marks the beginning
of the end of a period of acute uncertainty, although there must be doubts
concerning the make up of this new group. There must also be a little
apprehension when Keith Ridge, chief pharmaceutical officer at the Department
of Health, announces that regulation may need to be “reframed” so
as to apply tighter control since tighter regulation is not known for
producing an atmosphere conducive to innovation.
Normally, extreme care is taken in ensuring balance and fair representation
when important government committees are set up but both Dawn Primarolo,
the Minister of State for Public Health at the Department of Health,
and Dr Ridge were at pains to point out that the members were appointed
on the basis of their skills and experience, not as representatives of
any particular section of the profession. Fair enough, but an examination
of the membership of this group shows no one with current or recent experience
as an employee community pharmacist.
There is no doubt that the experience of being a proprietor community
pharmacist is different to the experience of being an employee community
pharmacist and, in fact, the pharmacists with community connections in
this group lead extremely busy lives and one may entertain small doubts
as to the proportion of their time taken up by actual hands-on community
experience.
Since employee community pharmacists make up by far the largest part
of pharmacists on the Register, this is a strange omission. The past
few short years have seen large changes in community pharmacy:
• training
and use of accredited checking technicians
• a huge increase in helping
patients to manage their repeat prescription requests
• an equally huge
increase in deliveries of medicines to patients; medicine use reviews
• diabetes,
blood pressure monitoring and cholesterol testing
• smoking cessation
provisions
• supply of emergency hormonal contraception
— the
list is almost endless. All of these make it imperative that PRLOG has
access within itself to active hands-on practitioners in order that its
deliberations are fully informed.
This is not to denigrate the worthy community pharmacists appointed to
the group, merely to point out that their very eminence may distance
them from the rough and tumble of everyday practice.
Another noteworthy omission from this group is pharmacists with practical
contemporary knowledge of everyday mishaps gained from dealing with insurance
and other claims. Neither the National Pharmacy Association nor the Pharmacists
Defence Association are represented and yet between them they provide
professional liability insurance cover for a large majority of pharmacists
and have an unrivalled up-to-date knowledge of the mishaps and contretemps
which occur on a day-to-day basis.
Perhaps these shortcomings will be addressed when PRLOG begins its consultation
process, but the future is certainly misty. Bob Gartside
Caernarfon, Gwynedd
An iniquity that must be redressed
From Mr J. A. Schofield, MRPharmS
The proposed split of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society into a representative
body and a Government-appointed regulatory body has commenced and the
Professional Regulation and Leadership Oversight Group (PRLOG) has been
constituted. Not one member of that group has been drawn from the ranks
of employee or locum pharmacists. This is not right.
The Company Chemists’ Association has a representative and there
are four community pharmacists who are owners, managers or employers
or who fit that description. Although I accept that at least one of those
individuals can probably be trusted to remember what it was like to be
an employee, I think it is a scandal that those who are currently employee
pharmacists and working in the current conditions have no representation.
Employee pharmacists will be held accountable for the work that will
be expected of them yet they have no voice at the table around which
this will be decided. They will have no input into the process where
the excesses of some of their employers could meaningfully be addressed.
This is manifestly unfair.
Employee and locum community pharmacists make up a large proportion of
the register, ie, those to be regulated. Regulation is not equitably
possible under the current arrangement — even technicians have
better representation on the oversight group. Writing letters to pharmacy
publications will not be sufficient — our leaders and opinion formers
must do all in their power to redress this iniquity.
Tony Schofield
Jarrow, Tyne and Wear
Formation of the professional body
From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
I was encouraged to read Alan
Rogers’s letter in the PJ (28 July,
p99) calling for members to engage with the White Paper debate. Member
apathy will be our greatest enemy so it was good to see his views expressed
in such a passionate way. It is for the membership to decide the future
of a professional body for pharmacy and although the timelines are tight
they are not so short as to require the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
to act in haste.
What has been particularly encouraging in recent weeks has been the change
in the Government’s attitude to the formation of a future professional
body. Lord Hunt, speaking at the recent All-Party Pharmacy Group meeting,
made it clear that such a body should be built on the “fantastic
work” that the Society has done over many years. The mood music
has also changed inside the profession with pharmacy organisations recognising
the benefits of building on the foundations of the Society.
Clearly the Society must not be complacent and the Society’s Council
is aware of the sensitive nature of the work that is required if a new
pharmacy body is to be established. We are looking to strike a difficult
balance in terms of seeking the views of our members and, at the same
time, not being perceived as leading the profession by the nose.
The Opinion Leader research that has been commissioned is an exploratory
piece of work that will be idea forming, with the findings used to help
inform a formal business model. The first stage of the research will
last up to six weeks and involve a series of focus groups from around
the UK. This work will be followed by a number of one-to-one, in-depth
interviews that will look to build on the findings of the focus groups.
Looking to the future there will come a time when the Society will need
to go out to wider membership with firm proposals for a professional
body. But before we reach that stage we must first clarify what members
will want from such an organisation in order that they will be prepared
to join it.
Graham Phillips
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal