Comments for this topic have been frozenFalse allegation
From Mr D. I. M. Simpson, FRPharmS
Andrew Burr suggests that the Save our Society campaign has left a once respected professional and regulatory body cut adrift, not by the Government, but by the actions of its membership (PJ, 6 December 2008, p658).
He thus seems to be repeating a claim that has made previously that, but for the SoS campaign, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society would be all set to enjoy a secure future as a professional body performing the dual role of regulation and representation (PJ, 3 March 2007, p245, and 10 March 2007, p281).
As I have written before (PJ, 10 March 2007, p280), in believing this, Mr Burr is living in cloud cuckoo land. The Government, contrary to his belief, is acting to separate regulation from representation as part of a general policy for the health professions. And, as I pointed out before, this means that the two functions can no longer be performed by the same body.
The SoS campaign, in which I was a participant, had the objective of preserving the Society as a representative professional association. Its favoured solution to the separation of regulation and representation would have seen a regulatory board set up within the Society, but this found no favour with Government.
The danger that the Society faces now is what amounts to a reverse takeover attempt by a self-selected group of bodies with scant resources, if any resources at all, who want to gain access to and direct the Society’s considerable assets, which have been built up by its members since its very foundation.
Douglas Simpson
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Disclose the identity of these organisations
From Mr I. G. Simpson, FRPharmS
Douglas Simpson has drawn our attention to the perceived danger that a group of self-selected bodies is attempting to gain access to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s considerable resources, (PJ, 13 December 2006, p692).
He owes it to his fellow members to disclose the identity of these bodies and tell us what evidence he has of their alleged subversive intentions and activities. Has he shared his information with his fellow Council members and do they share his concern?
Earlier this year, Mr Simpson made a similar accusation against the College of Pharmacy Practice and other organisations that subscribed to the Waterloo Agreement (PJ, 7 June 2008, p688).
In response, we assured him that he and fellow members of the Society had nothing to fear from our approach to supporting the development of the new professional body (PJ, 14 June 2008, p775).
All these organisations, together with the Society and others, have participated fully in the Transitional Committee’s process and, to the best of my knowledge, all are committed to working with the Society to implement the prospectus (PJ, 29 November 2008, p618). Therefore, I know of no body that is acting in the manner described by Mr Simpson.
A few weeks ago, Mr Simpson accused one of your writers of tilting at windmills (PJ, 15 November 2008, p560). Has he discovered some new enemies who pose this danger to our Society, or is he now afflicted by the quixotic tendencies, which he earlier saw in others?
Ian G. Simpson
Chief Executive
College of Pharmacy Practice
Do not divide and scaremonger
From Mr G. Hall, MRPharmS
In his letter (PJ, 13 December 2008, p692), Douglas Simpson asserts that “the danger that the [Royal Pharmaceutical] Society faces now is what amounts to a reverse takeover attempt by a self-selected group of bodies with scant resources, if any resources at all, who want to gain access to and direct the Society’s considerable assets, which have been built up by its members since its very foundation”.
It would be useful to know which bodies he is referring to. Without this, one can only assume the groups he refers to consist of members who are themselves members of the Society and have, therefore, contributed to the assets and standing of the Society.
I am also intrigued as to who these groups are “taking over” from. Perhaps Mr Simpson can enlighten us.
This language is ill informed and unhelpful from any pharmacist but, from a member of Council, with all the governance responsibilities of this office is, frankly, unacceptable.
This is a time when we should all be working together to develop a professional body that provides leadership and support for all members.
There is a wealth of valuable experiences that many specialist groups have built up over time, therefore, it is not the time for dividing and scaremongering.
Graeme Hall
Assistant Chief Pharmacist Clinical Services
University Hospitals of Leicester
from the Editor, The Pharmaceutical Journal
We are aware that Mr Hall represented a group that worked with the Transitional Committee.
Does the Society’s Council really want to work with us?
From Mr S. R. Tomlin, MRPharmS
I was shocked to read Douglas Simpson’s letter (PJ, 13 December 2008, p692), in which he asserts that “the danger that the [Royal Pharmaceutical] Society faces now is what amounts to a reverse takeover attempt by a self-selected group of bodies with scant resources, if any resources at all, who want to gain access to and direct the Society’s considerable assets, which have been built up by its members since its very foundation”.
Is this statement aimed at people like myself, who have worked hard over the years to create supportive groups to enhance our profession? We may be small bodies, but our members give their time and fees willingly.
Over the summer, I was privileged to have worked (on behalf of smaller organisations) with many others in preparing papers for the Transitional Committee to inform the recently published prospectus (PJ, 29 November 2008, p618). I believed that we were assisting in sketching out the vision for an inclusive future leadership body that would serve pharmacists well and improve healthcare for patients.
Therefore, it comes as a huge disappointment that a member of Council should write a letter, which not only belittles the enthusiasm of such groups, but accuses them of attempting to “take over” the Society (of which we are also members).
At this time, the “groups” are speaking out in order to ensure the new body is inspiring and enhances the profession. By creating a body that is joined to gain post-nominals is not the solution for a professional body. We have that already and yet people have obviously thought this is not enough (by creating so many other supportive pharmacy groups).
We want to work with the Society to create a professional body fit for the future. Does the Society’s Council really want to work with us? Mr Simpson’s letter is clearly aimed at opening up divisions within the profession at a time when I thought we were all pulling together.
Steve Tomlin
London
from the Editor, The Pharmaceutical Journal
We are aware that Mr Tomlin represents a group that worked with the Transitional Committee.
What is to happen to CPD records?
From Dr C. E. Heading, MRPharmS
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is currently undertaking two consultations that have relevance to pharmacists’ continuing professional development. These relate to CPD standards and guidance, and the prospectus for the new professional body (PJ, 29 November 2008, p618).
These two documents share one glaring gap in the information they provide. Once the Society ceases to exist in 2010, what will happen to the CPD records lodged in its electronic system over preceding years? The consultation on CPD refers to the e-system but fails to explain what will happen to its content when the Society can no longer run the system.
Similarly, the prospectus gives no indication that the new body plans to continue to provide the existing electronic CPD service or, indeed, any future system. This seems odd because it would be such a strong selling point for the new body.
Our understanding, based on attendance at public Transitional Committee meetings, is that the Society has not decided (or is not being allowed to decide) what is to happen to CPD records.
Outside Transcom, it has been suggested to us that the General Pharmaceutical Council will be seizing the records. However, The National Association of Women Pharmacists has been assured by one elected officer of the Society that the records are the property of the pharmacists who lodged them, so it follows that their fate cannot be decided without the consent of each pharmacist who has made entries into the system. There are points of law to be considered as well as expediency.
If pharmacists are to be convinced that a new era of openness has dawned, they need a straight answer to the question: what will happen to pre-2010 CPD records entered by pharmacists into the Society’s e-system? They also deserve to be told whether the new body expects to have any control at all over the post-2010 CPD recording system.
If the Society is silent because of pressures from outside the profession, this should be made public. We are all adult enough to understand that such things can happen and the knowledge could well foster a spirit of solidarity.
Finally, I should emphasise that I am only talking about the painstaking routine entries that pharmacists are encouraged to make every few weeks and not about the formal submissions that the Society may soon be starting to request.
Christine E. Heading
National Association of Women Pharmacists
Society will exist in 2010 and could keep CPD records
I am amazed that Dr Heading believes that the Society will simply disappear in 2010. This is a body formed by Royal Charter that can only be dissolved by 2/3 of members voting for its dissolution, which I don't believe will happen before or after 2010. All bodies or companies are in breach of the Data Protection Act if they do not act in a responsible manner with personal data, the Society is no exception. This is a non issue as CPD records are personal data which may not be passed on without the individual's permission.
Mark Walker - Oxford
Waterloo Group - Does the cap fit ?
Ian Simpson initially wanted Pharmacy Technicians to be members of the new body, that was defeated. Now some Waterloo Group members have convinced TransCom that pharmaceutical scientists should be full members, yet only 9% of members support it. This will be defeated if anyone is silly enough to put it to a vote. Some of the Waterloo Group organisations fit the bill as self selected bodies attempting to take control of the Society's assets. Doug Simpson is spot on with his warning and the co-ordinated replies to his letter demonstate this.
Mark Walker - Oxford
Waterloo Group - Does the cap fit ?
Ian Simpson initially wanted Pharmacy Technicians to be members of the new body, that was defeated. Now some Waterloo Group members have convinced TransCom that pharmaceutical scientists should be full members, yet only 9% of members support it. This will be defeated if anyone is silly enough to put it to a vote. Some of the Waterloo Group organisations fit the bill as self selected bodies attempting to take control of the Society's assets. Doug Simpson is spot on with his warning and the co-ordinated replies to his letter demonstate this.
Mark Walker - Oxford
I am glad you are of the
I am glad you are of the view that personal data which may not be passed on without the individual's permission. I agree with you, but I have been told otherwise by two separate, senior individuals within pharmacy, both of whom are significantly involved with CPD.
It has never been made totally clear whether the CPD recording service was part of the regulatory or professional part of the Society's activities. However, the regulatory part will be going. If the new body takes shape, it is almost certain that some pharmacists will not join the body that replaces the current version of the Society. Will the new body retain the records of individuals who are not members? Will it return them? What effect will this have on the CPD monitoring process?
If the proposed new body does not gain approval, then the issue of holding data of future non-members will still be around.
The whole CPD recording issue is one that causes considerable anxiety amongst pharmacists, and with inadequacies shortly to be associated with disciplinary formalities, it seems only reasonable to ask the Society how it sees the future arrangements for holding data.
Alan Nathan's PJ letter of this week (20/27Dec) illustrates how extraordinary errors in the understanding of ownership and independance can occur.