The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7476 p510-511
3 November 2007

Society summary

Council’s response to BRM resolutions

This report, approved by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council at its October meeting, gives the Council’s response to the resolutions passed at the Society’s branch representatives’ meeting on 17 May 2007 (PJ, 2 June, pp652–655). [Readers may wish to refer to the branches’ explanatory notes and the Council’s background information (PDF 50K) published with the motions (PJ, 14 April, pp438–440).]

Society’s regulatory role
A. Bolton It is the opinion of this meeting to fully support the proposal that the Society should relinquish its regulatory role.

Council response: The Council is actively engaged with the Department of Health in establishing the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPharmC). When the GPharmC is established, the Society’s regulatory roles will be transferred to this new body.

The Society is represented on the DoH’s Pharmacy Regulation and Leadership Oversight Group (PRLOG), which is charged with advising ministers on establishing the new regulator, managing the transition process and identifying ways in which the professional body could support the regulator.

The PRLOG met for the first time on 7 August 2007and the next meeting will be on 9 November.

Society assets
B. Glasgow and West of Scotland It is the opinion of this meeting that Society assets should be preserved for the benefit of professional members in the event that a complete split of professional and regulatory functions be required.

Council response: The assets (both financial and information-related) that are the property of the Society should remain assets of the Society, subject to data protection requirements. It may be necessary to reach agreement on the transfer of some records to the GPharmC (eg, the registers, fitness-to-practise databases) in order to allow it to fulfil its regulatory functions.

Negotiations over any such transfer would be expected to fall within the remit of the DoH PRLOG, which is charged with advising ministers on establishing the new regulator, managing the transition process and identifying ways in which the professional body could support the regulator.

The Society is represented on the PRLOG, which met for the first time on 7 August 2007 and which will meet next on 9 November.

The Society’s assets are the property of the Society as a legal corporation. Should the Society be dissolved, the Charter makes it clear that the assets could not be distributed among the members of the Society but would have to be given to some other body or bodies with objects similar to those of the Society.

This could only be done with the consent of the members via special resolution or through legislation, but using legislation for this purpose would be considered heavy-handed, lengthy and likely to run into opposition from a range of stakeholders.

Preregistration tutor training
C. Edinburgh and Lothians It is the opinion of this meeting that the RPSGB should develop specific training programmes and guidance for tutors to support their work of supervising preregistration pharmacists.

Council response: The Society will be running a pilot exercise to provide face-to-face interactive training on the specific topic of work-place assessment in autumn 2007.

Further proposals will be developed in 2008 based on the outcome of the pilot exercise. In addition to this work, the Society already provides distance learning materials and information in the tutor workbooks.

MEP guide
D. Nottingham It is the opinion of this meeting that the “changes in this edition” page included at the front of “Medicines, ethics and practice — a guide for pharmacists” (MEP) should be more explicit and helpful in identifying what has changed; particularly in regard to what the previous edition stated.

Council response: In making its response the Council has taken note of recommendations made by the Law and Ethics Committee, that it is not practicable to indicate every change in the “Changes in this edition” section of the MEP guide.

The Law and Ethics Committee is supportive of expanding the “Changes in this edition” section to provide further information to the membership on the particular areas that are new or have been revised. This will help ensure that pharmacists and pharmacy technicians continue to use the MEP guide as a day-to-day reference document.

These revisions have been incorporated into the MEP guide number 31.

Medicines packaging
E. South West Metropolitan It is the opinion of this meeting that the Society work with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and other appropriate bodies to ensure that an accurate representation of the shape, colour, size and any markings on tablets or capsules should be printed on the outside of the pack.

Council response: The Society supports the principles of the motion; correct tablet identification is paramount for patient safety. The practice team within the directorate of practice and quality improvement will work with the MHRA and the National Patient Safety Agency to explore the possible outcomes of the motion. The Society will raise the issue with both bodies during autumn 2007.

Tutors’ special interest group
F. British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association It is the opinion of this meeting that there should be a special interest group to represent preregistration tutors.

Council response: The Council will actively explore the options for providing the sort of support for tutors that a special interest group can provide, but with an open mind as to the best structure for this.

One option may be to explore an electronic approach to providing this support with appropriate resources in place and perhaps through myRPSGB. Timetabling and dedicated resources will need to be in place to support this mechanism. Options for the support of pharmacists, preregistration trainees and students will be explored by the Council during 2008 as part of the work to develop the new professional body.

Pharmacy students’ charter
G. British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association It is the opinion of this meeting that pharmacy students should have a comprehensive pharmacy charter to adhere to as undergraduates, modelled on charters of other health care professions.

Council response: The Council accepts the case for being granted appropriate powers over “prospective registrants” — those on accredited MPharm courses, overseas pharmacists assessment programmes, preregistration training and approved pharmacy technician training.

This will, however, need new legislation and the Council could not assume any new powers until legislative change. The Society will be working with Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence and the DoH to explore options.

(For example, if all the schools of pharmacy adopted Criminal Records Bureau checks and rigorous occupational health screening for all undergraduates, then this might decrease the value the Society could bring to undergraduate fitness-to-practise work.)

In the meantime, the new 2007 Registration Rules are being used to screen applicant’s fitness to practise (on health and conduct grounds) before they are admitted to the Register. The work to develop the Education Rules and their standards (as described in the paper “Fit for the future, phase 2” and agreed by the Council in June 2007) will take into account the need to be able to give guidance to prospective registrants, and the BPSA will be involved in this work.

The Society is also working with Council of University Heads of Pharmacy Schools and the BPSA to agree a common position from all the stakeholders within the profession.

Branch e-mail
H. Oxfordshire It is the opinion of this meeting that the Society investigates a way in which branches and regions could send a single email to all of its members.

Council response: The Council welcomes the motion and appreciates the work branch secretaries undertake to organise communications with members in order to support active branch programmes. The Council fully supports the provision of an efficient and cost-effective system for e-mailing branch members.

The Society has identified a number of possible solutions to this issue for which fully costed proposals are currently being developed. These include both internally and externally based solutions. It is expected that these proposals will be completed by the end of October after which time a decision will be taken regarding the suitability and affordability of the option. Implementation of the selected option will then start once approval to purchase has been gained.

One possible solution that is currently being used by some branch secretaries is Googlemail, a free service offered by the search engine provider Google. This facility enables branches and regions to set up an e-mail account with Google, which will allow them to send a single e-mail to all of their members.

Further details of how to set up this facility will be issued to secretaries in the near future. The Society will also explore the possibility of providing a centralised service whereby e-mails to branch members can be distributed on behalf of the branch.

A framework within which use of e-mail addresses will be governed, including policies, consent and terms and conditions of use (as well as data protection) is being developed.