Eight groups want to be central to professional body
On the sidelines
The Pharmaceutical Advisers’ Group, the Pharmacy
Law and Ethics Association, the Primary and Community Care Pharmacy
Network, the
Primary Care Pharmacists’ Association, UK Medicines Information
and the UK Radiopharmacy Group are among the organisations that
would like to work with the new professional body as part of a
wider stakeholder
group but not be an integral part.
The Neonatal and Paediatric Pharmacy
Group and the Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences are among the
groups that have not yet committed themselves. |
Eight pharmacy organisations have stated their desire to be part of the new professional body for pharmacy, following a meeting of the Waterloo
group. The group (PJ, 31 March 2007, p357), made up of parties with
an interest in the future body’s success, convened in London
last week to discuss the Clarke Inquiry’s report on the matter.
The Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK, the British Oncology Pharmacy
Association, the British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association,
the College of Pharmacy Practice (and its faculties), the Institute of
Pharmacy Management, the United Kingdom Clinical Pharmacy Association,
the United Kingdom Psychiatric Pharmacy Group and the College of Mental
Health Pharmacists all wish to be an integral part of the professional
body, as do the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s sector groups.
In a report of the meeting, Ian Simpson, CPP chief executive, wrote on
behalf of the Waterloo group: “It was agreed that the Waterloo
group organisations had much to contribute to the formation and subsequent
development of the new professional body, and all were keen to be involved.
“It
is imperative that the Waterloo group and the Society work together effectively
to establish the transitional committee and to appoint an
independent chair. This will ensure that the process demonstrates credibility
and validity to potential members.”
The Waterloo group broadly agreed with Nigel Clarke’s recommendations.
However, there was concern that the suggested science and academia sector
division did not give pharmacists in industry a high enough profile and
that pharmacists involved in NHS commissioning were included in the same
sector as providers of hospital services.
In terms of the new body’s image, Mr Simpson reported: “We
wish to reinforce Clarke’s comment that this is not a rebadged
RPSGB, [since] this will not be attractive to potential members. It must
be a bottom up organisation. The prospectus [to be] produced by the transitional
committee needs to ensure that the new body has a new name, a location
distinct from the GPhC and offers an attractive range of services to
all potential members.”
There was general agreement with the concept of a “committee of
special interest groups” but that title was not favoured. “Perhaps ‘board
for specialist and advanced practice’ would be an acceptable alternative,” Mr
Simpson wrote.
“It is important to distinguish between practising
in a specialty and practising at a higher level, and [this] board should
deal with both. Assessment should be competency based and should be standardised
across specialties and throughout GB or the UK. … The board and its
work must have credibility and academic rigour and the involvement of
recognised clinical and academic experts is essential.”
It was proposed that APTUK, the BPSA, the CPP and the UKCPA should each
have a seat on the transitional committee alongside other organisations
that will remain separate from the new body, such as the Guild of Healthcare
Pharmacists, the Pharmacists’ Defence Association, the Pharmaceutical
Services Negotiating Committee and the National Pharmacy Association. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader