The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7487 p116
2 February 2008

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 60K, Acrobat Reader

• Clarke Inquiry (2)
• New professional body
• The Society (2)
• Community pharmacy (2)
• Pharmacy practice
• Technicians
• The industry
• WCPPE
• Drug addiction
• Research

Letters to the Editor

Clarke Inquiry

Stimulating, informative, but poorly attended meeting

From Miss H. J. Davis, MRPharmS

I read with interest the two recent articles related to the Clarke Inquiry, “Our Society’s future: are you bovvered?”, by Alan Rogers (PJ, 19 January 2008, p55) and “Tiered levels of membership needed until a good track record is established”, by Christine Glover (ibid, p56). And I recently attended the Manchester meeting of the Clarke Inquiry. I found it stimulating and informative with a lively debate that lasted nearly three hours.

The turnout in Manchester (12 at its peak) reflects the apathy highlighted by Mr Rogers. The audience, about two-thirds of whom were employed in the managed sector, did not reflect the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s current membership. Maybe this is a reflection of the value those in the managed sector perceive a new body could offer?

However, throughout, I had the impression that the audience were all singing from the same song sheet irrespective of the sector of employment. This was encouraging as we realised it may be possible to have something that can represent all sectors of pharmacy although there must be the ability to recognise and appreciate the differences.

After the discussion, it seemed to me that we considered there were more similarities between the sectors than has possibly previously been acknowledged. Maybe the opportunities presented by developments such as the new community contracts and independent prescribers are blurring sectoral distinctions and roles. Surely, this is something that should be encouraged and built upon by a new professional body.

The sentiments expressed at the meeting were often what could be termed “Society bashing”, but we benefited from having two past members of the Society’s Council in the audience who could inform us of the internal workings of the Society. This was a cathartic exercise which helped define what we do not want and so stimulated suggestions of what we do want.

Mr Rogers states that it is “our Society” and urges us not to join the “ditch the Society” campaign. However, I did not get the feeling that those at the meeting considered it was “our Society”.

The consensus was that there should be an organisation which represents the professional interests of the pharmaceutical family — but not as we know it. We warmed to suggestions about what this might look like such as increased accessibility, resources and support. These are “benefits” which may encourage members to warm to “ownership”.

Many left the meeting with a slightly clearer picture of what we want the future to look like. The closing date for comments to the Clarke Inquiry has passed but, in future, I would urge members to attend such meetings, contribute to discussions and be informed by them, something not so easily achieved via website comments.

Helen Davis
Liverpool

Statisticians will not be impressed

From Mr A. J. Rogers, FRPharmS

The closing date for submissions to the Clarke Inquiry has now passed. Despite a flurry of eleventh-hour replies, the overall response has been poor, and opinions have been diverse.

For Nigel Clarke and his team, this is only the end of the beginning. They now face the nightmare of having to distil the “views of the profession” from the wildly differing comments of around 0.1 per cent of members. Statisticians will not be impressed.

For the profession, there will now be a period of dangerous inertia. Under the published timetable, the inquiry report will be presented to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council in April and published in May. The Council will then respond, and a further consultation exercise will be launched. There is a real danger that the “solution” will satisfy nobody, and the new professional body will fall flat on its face. Something must be done to keep the debate (such as it is) going, so that a consensus is formed.

If the Society wishes to demonstrate its commitment to the members, it will publish the inquiry report as soon as it is presented to the Society in March. In the meantime, it should publish the findings of the Opinion Leader research. The work may have been commissioned by Council, but it has been paid for by members. Forget the “them” and “us”, and get on with the honesty and transparency that we will expect from our new professional body.

Alan Rogers
Ewell, Surrey

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (New professional body)