| • Professional body (2)
• Terminology
• Ophthalmology
• Science programme
• GPhC
• Euthanasia
• Training
• Minority languages
• Combivent
• Patents and generics
• Miss Tracy's Mixture
• Four nations
Letters to the Editor
|
Professional body
What next?
From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
We should be grateful to Nigel Clarke and his team for an excellent
report against a difficult background
and in a short timescale. It provides a helpful platform for debate as
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
moves towards demerger.
However, Clarke inevitably failed to achieve “the Heineken effect” (reaching
out to the width and depth of our profession). I understand that fewer than
150 pharmacists in total attended his road shows. So he heard from the great
and the good (and the vested interests) but not the silent majority.
This will not deliver a professional body that enough grassroots pharmacists
will feel inspired to join, and pay for, voluntarily. A high (>70%) membership
by pharmacists is crucial. If that is not achieved how will the professional
body be financially viable or remotely credible as the voice of pharmacy.
The Society’s Council has no plans to simply go ahead and implement Clarke’s
60-plus recommendations. This is clearly recognised in the five-minute guide, “Plans
for new professional body pick up pace” (PDF 260K), sent out with
last week’s
PJ. So the next step is to inform and then listen to the members.
Pharmacists need to debate, to argue, to discuss, to conclude and, ultimately,
to vote on what Clarke recommends and the process has already begun. The Society
has all the tools for the job: branches, regions, special interest and sector
groups and, carefully enshrined within the 2004 Charter, the democratic process
that must be followed for changes on the scale proposed.
The use of technology,
such as the Society’s website, and pharmacist discussion groups, such
as Private-Rx, mean that not one of the Society’s 48,000 members should
be excluded from playing a part in the debate or, finally, from voting on the
proposals.
As I noted in the Council
discussion, (PJ, 3 May 2008, p543) one
of the notable absences in Clarke’s report is any consideration of alternative
options to a chartered body. This, too, must be discussed and agreed with the
members.
But time is short: the creation of two shadow bodies (a regulator and a professional
body) must be achieved by the end of 2009 if we are to meet the planned timetable
of formal demerger of the Society in January 2010. So we must move forward
with the process of transition, in parallel with consultation.
This is a professional matter and is, therefore, for pharmacists alone and,
logically, must be led by the democratically elected pharmacist members of
Council, working with other stakeholder bodies from within the profession.
It will be crucial, while simultaneously consulting the broad membership,
to include bodies like the UK Clinical Pharmacy Association, the College
of Pharmacy
Practice and the Institute of Pharmacy Management International, which have
committed themselves to merge with the new professional body. Council must
also ensure the Society’s national boards play their key role here.
To give the process credibility and to ensure transparency it will be crucial
to appoint a neutral chair. Nigel Clarke, and no criticism is intended here,
cannot perform this role since, otherwise, the transition process will be
seen simply to rubber stamp the
Clarke report.
There is an interesting parallel here with the Carter report. Lord Carter’s
helpful recommendations have been the basis for further debate within and
without the profession.
But it is Ken Jarrold, not Lord Carter, whom the Government
chose to chair the current Pharmacy Regulation and Leadership Oversight
Group, which is overseeing the establishment of the new regulator for
pharmacy,
the
General Pharmaceutical Council.
The Society is working hard to get closer to its members. This is a golden
opportunity to help achieve this crucial objective.
Graham Phillips
Member of Council and Chairman, Public Affairs Planning Group
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Time line poses a risk
From Professor H. McNulty
The Institute of Pharmacy
Management (IPM) has some suggestions to help
the transitional committee take the Clarke report recommendations forward.
The following need to be considered by or under the jurisdiction of the
transitional committee in addition to the development of a prospectus:
• The business plan and strategy for the new body
• Implementation and project management arrangements and timelines
• Option appraisals of potential models for different income streams
• Risk assessment of these
• New governance and managerial arrangements
IPM believes that given the above, the time lines proposed for establishing
the new body pose significant risk to members, to the regulator, to the
professional body and to the public. It can take many months to recruit
to senior positions and the plans, structure, governance, titles, duties
and function of the posts have to be developed and agreed.
IPM Council is very pleased to see that the Clarke report believes “that
the case that management advice is a legitimate area for consideration by the
professional body is a compelling one”. IPM suggested a broader role
than the management advice.
IPM Council proposes a modification of recommendation
26 for consideration by the transitional committee: “The professional
body should work closely with IPM (which might become an integral part of the
organisation) to ensure that its members have better access to management qualifications,
appropriate standards, education, training, CPD support and advice.”
IPM Council recognises there are organisations interested in or providing
management support and would be pleased to hear from groups that share a
similar vision.
IPM looks forward to working with the transitional committee, The Royal Pharmaceutical
Society and other organisations to help meet the challenges and demanding
targets for both business planning and the management proposal.
Howard McNulty
General Secretary
Institute of Pharmacy Management International
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal