Health News

Information and advisory service

The new PLB will provide an enhanced information and advisory service to members via a single point of contact and via a 24/7 most commonly asked question and answers section on the re-launched RPSGB website. It was asked on the day whether the information service would be staffed in the evening and this is being looked at. As now, the service would aim to give you all the information you will require to make an informed decision. I know sometimes we would like to be told what to do but i guess, as a professional, we need to make decisions ourselves.

Myth busting session

I’ve attached a link to the myth busting document that was handed out at the meeting below.

http://www.pluk.co.uk/docs/New%20PLB%20mythbusting%20document.pdf

The key questions that were discussed were around the issue of the multiples dominating the new PLB. Steve Churton countered this argument by saying there will be no corporate membership category so that the multiples couldn’t dominate the new body. My main concern about the new PLB is that Boots and the Co-op have said that they will pay for all their pharmacists to join the new body (Or re-imburse them if they join) There are varying estimates about what percentage of pharmacists will join the new PLB with estimates from 15-90%. If only 15% join and 3000 are from Boots/Co-op i=they are bound to dominate. My view is that 75-80% will join in year one to see if the PLB can put their money where their mouth is and deliver on it’s promises. If they don’t, year 2 will see a sharp decline in membership.

Virtual Networks

The Society is currently trialing virtual networks with the secure environment and industrial pharmacists group. The virtual network are essence like a social networking site where pharmacists can post questions, inform other pharmacists of upcoming events and generally interact with fellow pharmacists online. This seems like a great idea and pharmacists can apply to the society for other networks to be set up after the trials have been completed and any problems ironed-out. The thinking is that specialist sectors e.g. oncology pharmacist, substance misuse pharmacists etc could have their own network but also that local practice forums could have their own virtual network to either support or replace physical networks e.g. branches.

Enhanced and specialist service (Content from pjonline)

Pharmacy, especially in the community has always treated all pharmacists the same in terms of ability. However we all know that every single pharmacist is different and has their own strengths, weaknesses and areas of special interest. I’m really excited, therefore at the proposed developments in this area. However it’s a bit complex so i have posed an article from pjoline below to explain.

Phase 1
A proposed governance structure (PDF 140K) has been developed by the project team in consultation with a wide stakeholder reference group of more than 150 pharmacists representing most specialisms. The structure will ensure quality and robust assessment across the sectors and specialisms. This will soon be finalised, pending agreement from the transition working group.

The proposal is for a specialist curriculum committee (SCC) to accredit the curricula and ensure they are robust. A professional assessment board (PAB) will award the professional designations and ensure the quality of candidates coming through the various levels of advancement.

The specialist groups (SGs) will define the knowledge and skills relevant for their specialty (curriculum).

We are also looking at the possibility of using the validated frameworks to support general, advanced and consultant level practice — the general level framework (GLF) and the advanced and consultant level framework (ACLF) frameworks — by working in collaboration with the Competency Developments and Evaluation Group (CoDEG) and adapting these when necessary. The proposal to use the existing frameworks rather than reinvent them has been strongly supported by the profession.

Phase 2
In consultation with the membership phase 2 will seek to define the professional designations, framework approach and standard processes, and establish the governance groups. The aim is for there to be up to four levels of advancement that can be achieved throughout a career.

Level 1 could be gained soon after registration, in the early years of practice, regardless of sector. This could potentially link to the GLF, representing general practice in whichever pharmacy sector people are in.

For example, after a few years, a pharmacist could potentially achieve the professional designation “practitioner” in pharmacy in community, hospital or industry. This would be dependent on demonstrating the appropriate level of knowledge and skills.

At the highest level (4), the professional designation could be “consultant” level or above and relate to the relevant ACLF competencies and the relevant curriculum in a specialism or consultant level general practice — again across all sectors.

An individual would have to demonstrate:

leadership and expertise in their area of practice
the ability to manage at a high level
skill in educating and training
skill in undertaking and disseminating research in practice
The area of expert practice could be in a specialty such as respiratory medicine or general practice, but at consultant level.

Developing appropriate terminology is important so that expert practice covers all areas of clinical pharmacy in hospital and community sectors, management at a high level, industry and academia. To get this right, subsequent meetings with all stakeholders will continue, followed by extensive market research and consultation with the profession.
Next steps
This project is in the early stages and much work is still needed to further engage the profession, and employers, to ensure national and cross-sector endorsement.

The ASP project started with a clean sheet, enabling the profession to decide what it wants, and this will continue. Members of the project team have been chosen to represent the wider pharmacy profession, and the virtual stakeholder reference group extends this network further.

The proposed role, remit and operating model for the specialist curriculum committee, the professional assessment board and the specialist groups can be seen in the Figure. These may evolve into professional curriculum committee and professional groups and professional assessment board, pending discussions and consultation. We have worked with a wide cross-section of the profession around this governance structure.

Summary

I think, in summary that the profession should give the new PLB a chance. I believe that the people at the top have the profession’s best interests at heart and are committed to an ambitious schedule of change and development for the new PLB. My main concern is around the multiples having too much influence however this can be prevented by some of us standing up and being counted and standing for election for the new national pharmacy boards in England, Scotland and Wales.

What we mustn’t do is be apathetic. The elections in November are the most important in the profession’s history. If we don’t get involved, the new PLB could fail and if we don’t have a viable professional body the profession will fall into disrepute and the vultures will take over.

So Lloyds Pharmacy and Bupa have already have their interpretations of the RP regulations brought into question by the RPSGB (PJ Online article below)

http://www.pjonline.com/news/pda_claims_rp_rules_are_being_interpreted_unfairly

I guess that this was always going to happen with any new working practices but it will be interesting to see how the RPSGB respond. The problems have been highlighted by the PDA who suggest that the Society may have changed the RP guidelines in favour of the multiples. I hope that this was not done intentionally and that the multiples wouldn’t “place” people on the council to make sure their commercial interests are represented ahead of the professional interests of their employee pharmacists. Maybe I’m being niave  to think they wouldn’t as their main objective is to maximise shareholder (or owner) return. Linking this to the recent European Court Ruling

http://www.pjonline.com/forum/pharmacy_ownership_0

The PDA have shown that they are acting in the interest of the individual pharmacist. Is this an example of how a leopard never changes it’s spots and that the new PLB will still put bricks-and-mortar pharmacies ahead of flesh-and-blood pharmacist as it always seems to have done. I hope it isn’t because if it is, why should i join it?