The Alternative PeeJay Online

Pharmaceutical Journal issues clarification

2011-08-23T13:33:00.003+01:00

The Pharmaceutical Journal have now kindly issued a clarification of their original story regarding the petition

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

The headline has been altered to

Clarification: Petition calls for wider debate on pharmacists’ professional independence

and the following paragraph has been added at the end of the piece

Clarification from PJ Online

PJ Online regrets the misleading interpretation of Graeme Stafford’s intent behind his petition.

Although the background was a European Court of Justice ruling on the restriction of ownership of pharmacies, this was not Mr Stafford’s aim. Rather that the profession, in support of the English Pharmacy Board and in light of the ECJ judgment, needs to debate the subject of pharmacists' professional independence in the UK from the perspective of public protection.

Mr Stafford would like to put the debate in the context of the ECJ judgment (which he believes in effect says that because medicines are special and that pharmacists are special, the normal rules of commerce in the EU can be suspended in order that the public can be better protected by pharmacists) but not restricting the debate to the subject of non-pharmacist ownership of

pharmacies alone.

I welcome the clarification now let the debate begin in earnest

Campaign calls for end to non-pharmacists owning pharmacies say Pharmaceutical Journal

2011-08-23T09:37:00.013+01:00

The Pharmaceutical Journal this week has printed a headline

Campaign calls for end to non-pharmacists owning pharmacies

It goes on to say

A campaign has been launched by a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s English Pharmacy Board to change the law to restrict the ownership of a pharmacy in England to a pharmacist.

then it goes on to say

Graeme Stafford has set up an online petition, which calls on the Government to take steps to ensure that pharmacists "can have genuine professional independence in order to protect public health".

I have emailed the editor of the PJ to aks her what evidence she has that the petition "calls for end to non-pharmacists owning pharmacies".

The petition is in support of the English Pharmacy Board of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society position and calls on signatories to support that position.

The English Pharmacy Board (EPB) of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) would wish to achieve the same laudable aim of protecting the public by ensuring that pharmacists in England enjoy genuine professional independence.

If the PJ had attended the relevant EPB meeting and reported on that then I would have though they would have known my personal position. During the meeting I spoke in glowing terms about the ECJ judgment because it says pharmacists are special, they deal with special goods and they deserve special treatment because of the vital role they play in advising and protecting the public. However I have been consistently advised that the removal of ownership of pharmacies from non-pharmacists for historical reasons is not possible in the UK. So as an elected member of the EPB I am more than happy to fully support the statement which was passed unanimously by the Board.

In May 2009 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found against the European Commission and in favour of Italy and Germany in cases involving the right of those States to restrict the ownership of pharmacies to pharmacists alone. The Court decided this restriction was justified in those particular circumstances because of the protection it provides to public health, more specifically by the objective of ensuring that the provision of medicinal products to the public is reliable and of good quality. The Court also said that it has not been established that another measure less than the rule excluding non-pharmacists from ownership would make it possible to ensure just as effectively the level of reliability and quality in the provision of medicinal products to the public. The law in Great Britain does not currently restrict ownership to pharmacists alone.

The English Pharmacy Board (EPB) of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) would wish to achieve the same laudable aim of protecting the public by ensuring that pharmacists in England enjoy genuine professional
independence.

The EPB wishes to work with government, other representative bodies and employers to bring forward recommendations to ensure pharmacists can practice in an atmosphere of professional freedom that allows them to provide the highest levels of public service and protection. In order to achieve this the EPB in its role as part of the RPS is currently involved in the review of the Responsible Pharmacist regulations, the fundamental review of the Medicine Act and is currently moving forward with its workplace pressure campaign through the promotion of professional
empowerment.

When I hear from the PJ I will let you know.

Petition in the PJ

2011-08-21T18:49:00.002+01:00

News of the petition has reached the Pharmaceutical Journal this week.

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

The petition does not actually call for the end to non-pharmacists owning pharmacies as the headline says so it's an interesting interpretation by the journalist who wrote it. I will be considering what response to make to this article and I'll let you know what I'll be doing in the near future.

Please post any comments below if you want to let me know what you think.

To take part in the LocumVoice discussion follow this link

http://www.locumvoice.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4890

Pharmacists should enjoy genuine professional independence to ensure public protection

2011-08-14T17:25:00.001+01:00

Well it has been a long time coming but at last we have a petition regarding the professional independence of pharmacists. This petition supports the English Pharmacy Board (EPB) of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society statement unanimously passed at the last Board meeting June 30th 2011.

The EPB statement reads

In May 2009 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found against the European Commission and in favour of Italy and Germany in cases involving the right of those States to restrict the ownership of pharmacies to pharmacists alone. The Court decided this restriction was justified in those particular circumstances because of the protection it provides to public health, more specifically by the objective of ensuring that the provision of medicinal products to the public is reliable and of good quality. The Court also said that it has not been established that another measure less than the rule excluding non-pharmacists from ownership would make it possible to ensure just as effectively the level of reliability and quality in the provision of medicinal products to the public. The law in Great Britain does not currently restrict ownership to pharmacists alone.

The English Pharmacy Board (EPB) of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) would wish to achieve the same laudable aim of protecting the public by ensuring that pharmacists in England enjoy genuine professional
independence.

The EPB wishes to work with government, other representative bodies and employers to bring forward recommendations to ensure pharmacists can practice in an atmosphere of professional freedom that allows them to provide the highest levels of public service and protection. In order to achieve this the EPB in its role as part of the RPS is currently involved in the review of the Responsible Pharmacist regulations, the fundamental review of the Medicine Act and is currently moving forward with its workplace pressure campaign through the promotion of professional
empowerment.

To support this statement by signing the petition please click here

GPhC do not uphold their primary objective in my view

2010-09-02T20:21:00.000+01:00

I have a letter in the PJ this week that challenges the view that the General Pharmaceutical Council will uphold its primary objective of protecting the public.

http://www.pjonline.com/forum/general_pharmaceutical_council_gphc?page=2#comment-3670

GPhC Duncan Rudkin has responded

http://www.pjonline.com/forum/general_pharmaceutical_council_gphc?page=2#comment-3671

Please feel free to comment on his response. Does it answer any of the questions I posed?

Interventions Survey

2010-08-14T15:42:00.002+01:00

The Government says it wants evidence of the usefulness of pharmacists.

So let's give them some.

Interventions Survey

Once collected I will pass them Earl Howe for consideration.

Give us back our pharmacies!!!!

2010-08-12T21:41:00.002+01:00

By popular demand I have now set up a Facebook group for those that support the European Court of Justice judgement that owner ship of pharmacies should be restricted to pharmacists alone and that it is lawful for any European state that wishes to do so to pass laws that upholds that restriction.

In the UK we lost that right in 1880. Countries that restrict ownership include Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Spain.

If you want to read the judgement then look here and here
If you want to read the press release look here

ENB Election

2010-01-27T22:23:00.002Z

Job done :-)

Grateful thanks to all who voted for me.

Next job ;-)

Merry Christmas

2009-12-25T19:04:00.003Z

I wish all my readers a very Merry Christmas and if you voted for the stop Remote Supervision candidates an exciting New Year which could herald a long awaited change in our fortunes as pharmacists.

Negative campaigning and those emails

2009-12-16T23:10:00.026Z

It appears that private emails that I exchanged with several ENB candidates have been sent without my permission to the press.

PJOnline

Chemist and Druggist

Rather than having them published piecemeal I thought it might be better if they were published in chronological order and showing the whole of those emails that have been quoted. I feel this will make it easier for the electorate to judge the actions of those involved.

I recently sent emails to those who had supported my previous campaigns asking them to support me again during the elections and asking them to support the other candidates campaigning to stop remote supervision. In reply I was contacted by a several ENB candidates asking if they could join the list of stop remote supervision candidates. Before the voting papers where sent out I did as a courtesy reply to them explaining the situation. I had already explained the situation in public on LocumVoice in reply dated Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:39 pm to a LocumVoice member who also supported the campaign but was not on the list.

LocumVoice (see ninth posting on this page)

As a courtesy to those who wrote to me I replied with a personal email restating much of what I had already publically stated.

Here is an example of an email I received dated 10/12/09 18:00 :-

Dear Graeme,
Please add me to the list as I am standing for election too!!! What's your telephone number?

and here is the reply from me dated 10/12/09 18:08

I'm afraid this is a terribly difficult situation. There are I'm afraid only 11 places on the ENB with a total of 38 candidates spread across 6 separate elections. You will notice that the 9 STOP REMOTE SUPERVISION candidates on the list for the ENB only stood in one of the election categories each. This is so we would not compete against each other. Setting the hospital election aside there are nine candidates and nine places. Any other candidates standing could I'm afraid dilute the vote in a way that allows opposing candidates to win with a minority vote for their view. Does that make sense? It's complex I'm afraid but that is the fact of the matter.

The way this election was set up is quite ridiculous. Many of us opposed the charter changes but the money Council spent on getting a "Yes" vote has caused this situation.

It is extremely unfortunate that I would have to campaign against you even though we may be on the same side. This is a terribly hard thing to say or expect but in your position I would be giving serious thought to withdrawing my candidacy to give us the best chance of winning.

This is absolutely not how I would want it to be but the system leaves me no choice.

If you need more information please come back to me and if you decide to continue I wish you well.

Kindest regards,

In the case of one of these candidates I received a further reply dated 13/12/09 23:01

Dear Graeme,
I hope you are well...
Please advise me whether you and the other candidates wish me to stand down and give you a better chance of winning ?
All the best

By this time the voting papers had gone out so I replied thus in an email dated 14/12/09 09:27

Good to hear from you again. It's a real shame this situation. If you had been at the selection meeting I'd have gladly stood aside to let you run as I think the electorate need young enthusiastic guys rather than cynical old awkward squad members like myself. However I think it's too late now to do anything to change the actual election candidate list now the voting papers have gone out.

Tactically the best thing for you to do, in my opinion, would be to stay in the race and ask as many of your supporters as possible to vote for as many of the Stop RS candidates as they feel comfortable with. Your supporters have 11 votes in total so tell them to vote for yourself and 10 others (if they want to include 2 hospital votes). If you get a some solid support it will serve you in good stead for the next election which might only be a year away!!!!

I have not voted yet but I'm thinking; "would I vote for someone who I couldn't trust to keep private emails confidential?"

Now let's get on with debating the issues, please.

Stop Remote Supervision

2009-12-14T08:33:00.002Z

The STOP REMOTE SUPERVISION candidates are:-

In England

Catherine ARMSTRONG

Martin ASTBURY

Sultan 'Sid' DAJANI

John GENTLE

Lindsey GILPIN

Shilpa GOHILL

Tristan LEAROYD

Graham PHILLIPS

Graeme STAFFORD.

In Wales

Robert GARTSIDE

Keith DAVIES

Stop Remote Supervision Facebook Group

Voting starts after the weekend

2009-12-10T09:26:00.005Z

The Election papers are being posted out this weekend.

I have posted a mail to all the RP Delay and Decriminalisation of Errors Petition signatories asking them to vote for the STOP REMOTE SUPERVISION candidates. Everyone should start spreading the word to make sure this happens. More information should arrive soon from the PDA.

Please spread the word using these Facebook groups

Stop Remote Supervision

The Alternative Peejay

You will have a chance to vote on-line but once you've pushed the button there is no chance to re-vote.

Many thanks,

Graeme

The cage has been rattled

2009-12-02T21:22:00.005Z

My! Oh my! Oh my! Me thinks the President doth protest too much. He certainly does seem rattled by the prospect of his shaky edifice crumbling as soon as he leaves the throne.

I for one will not be responding to his agenda. I'm happy to respond to any of my supporters but his agenda is the old agenda and the sooner we consign it to history the better.

Keep rattling the cages everyone.

STOP REMOTE SUPERVISION

National Board Elections - Who should we vote for?

2009-11-30T21:39:00.010Z

The Responsible Pharmacist regulations were only round one; there is far worse to come

REMOTE SUPERVISION

You will soon be receiving voting papers for the RPSGB National Board elections. These are unique elections which give us the chance to elect an entirely new body of representation. The election in England will be especially complex. A group of us will be identifying ourselves with a campaign to

STOP REMOTE SUPERVISION.

In order to avoid a repeat of the disastrous vote in Council that prevented a delay to the RP regulations it is vital that the

STOP REMOTE SUPERVISION

candidates get elected. These candidates will not be campaigning on just this one issue but they have joined together so you can identify them easily as the type of candidate you may well want to vote for. So if you live in ENGLAND and want to make sure those candidates who ignored your wishes last time don't get re-elected then please;

VOTE FOR ALL NINE OF THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES

Catherine Armstrong

Martin Astbury

Sid Dajani

John Gentle

Lindsey Gilpin

Shilpa Gohill

Tristan Learoyd

Graham Phillips

Graeme Stafford

THIS APPLIES NO MATTER WHAT SECTOR YOU WORK IN

YOU CAN AND SHOULD VOTE IN ALL SECTORS.

You have 11 votes in total so having voted for these nine candidates, you can also vote for two hospital candidates. Again this applies no matter what sector you work in. If you work in hospital please also vote for those named above. You are entitled to and your support will be greatly appreciated not least by those hospital pharmacists who also locum in community.

If you live in Wales please vote for:-

Robert Gartside

Keith Davies

If you live in Scotland this does not apply although I would be very happy if you can find candidates who are willing to join with us. Thank you in advance for you help and co-operation. This is a historic election. Let's work together to make it successful.

Please help to spread this message

Elections

2009-11-24T19:52:00.009Z

The deadline for putting yourself forward as a candidate in the forthcoming historic RPSGB elections has now passed. We will have to wait until 11th December to find out how many candidates there are and who is standing in which category.

The elections are very complex and a strategy has been worked out to maximise the chances of preferred LocumVoice and STOP REMOTE SUPERVISION candidates being elected.

When your election papers arrive I will be publishing advice on how to vote to give these candidates the best chance of wining. If you want to support these candidates and look back to this time with pride as the moment when the tide finally turned then please keep tuning in to see what you can do to make this happen.

Please become a follower of this blog and join the following Facebook group to show your support

STOP REMOTE SUPERVISION

Please also join LocumVoice for a wider perspective on this and other pharmacy issues of the day.

Stop Remote Supervision

2009-11-17T16:14:00.001Z

There is a new Facebook group if you want to join in.

Mayrhofen at sunset

2009-11-17T15:21:00.000Z

Running scared

2009-11-17T14:58:00.005Z

The establishment are already running scared that pharmacists who care about other pharmacists might win control after the elections for the new style "Society".

No-one in their right mind is going to stand on one issue but we must make sure we don't get trampled on again like we did with the RP regulations.

This time everyone must vote. If you've never voted before then please even if it is just this one time - vote. This is a once in a lifetime event.

When the time comes if you need help deciding who to vote for then I'll be here to help.

Tell everyone you know. Get it right this time and we might get a Society run by pharmacists for pharmacists. Get it wrong and we'll be doomed for generations to come.

Election to the ENB

2009-11-03T20:10:00.005Z

I am giving serious consideration to standing for election to the English National Board especially now that the PDA has issued a call for action to try and stave off Remote Supervision.

If RS turns out to anything like RP we're all in for a bumpy ride. The only thing holding me back at the moment is the fact that I'll be out of the country when the first ENB meeting takes place after the election. I'm thinking I should still stand anyway but I would like to know what those who may potentially vote for me think.

President admits failings

2009-10-02T09:07:00.013+01:00

In a shocking disclosure the President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) , Mr Steve Churton, has admitted that the pharmacy regulator has failed over years to prevent illegal activity.

In a posting on PJOnline Mr. Churton said "What the RP requirements have done is to shine a spotlight on activity which is sometimes unlawful, and which I am sure none of us would condone." But it is of course the inspectors of Mr Churton's organisation who are responsible for preventing such illegalities occurring.

Will Mr Churton now do the right thing and resign?

The RPSGB now seems in a complete tangle over the RP regulations. They issued clarification just days before the regulations were to come in to force but immediately the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC) asked the Department of Health (DoH) for clarification of that clarification. A joint statement has been issued and now all we await is clarification of the clarification that was issued to clarify the clarification.

The APeeJayOnline view is that resignations should now follow. The Members of Council who voted against delaying the RP regulations should resign. The President should resign and Mr Jeremy Holmes the Chief Executive of RPSGB should resign. Protecting the public and supporting pharmacists to do that is what they are charged with doing.

THEY SHOULD RESIGN.

PDA meets DoH

2009-08-25T07:33:00.005+01:00

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

It's good to know the PDA is working hard on our behalf. It's a shame the RPSGB feels unable to support its members in the same way. The Council rejected a call for an RP delay but asked for clarification. The transcript of what was said in making that decision is available. Please see "We voted for these people" below. It's not a "Whitehall Farce". It's what they actually said!!!!!

Dr. Brian Curwain's contribution is particularly noteworthy as it comes from the Chairman of the English National Board. Don't miss what he said. Look down the page and weep.

The President Responds

2009-08-24T23:24:00.013+01:00

How amazing that Mr. Churton has responded so quickly to Mr. Koziol on the subject of the Responsible Pharmacist but has not uttered one word in reply to my concerns raised not last week but successively over months. Is it because Mr Koziol represents 14000 PDA members and I only have the backing of 4000+ petition signatories? If he doesn't think I am worthy of a reply maybe it's because he thinks that the European Court of Justice ruling May 19th 2009 that citizens are best served when only pharmacists own pharmacies is irrelevant or maybe it is more sinister than that.

In his reply to Mr Koziol, what he says in the following paragraph is very revealing:-

" Rather than creating an “us-against-them” culture, these changes provide a fresh opportunity for open and honest dialogue between employers and employees. Whether members are RPs, superintendent pharmacists or pharmacy owners, we should all work together to continue to safeguard patient safety."

He refers to members who own pharmacies but he does not make reference to non-pharmacists who own pharmacies and are therefore not members bound by a code of ethics. The problems that non-pharmacist owners can cause members is at the very heart of the matter where the ECJ ruling and objections to the RP regulations is concerned and of course Mr Churton is himself a pharmacist member who works for a non-pharmacist owner.

Would it therefore be reasonable to speculate that Mr Churton will not answer me because he is caught in a classic Catch 22 situation namely:- a pharmacist who could not say that only pharmacists should own pharmacies would be thought of as crazy but a leading pharmacist working for a multiple owned by a non-pharmacist would be crazy to say so.

I hope our own President is able to stick by his own creed when he says:-

"I appreciate that it will not always be easy for some to exercise this power but, as a professional, I believe it is right for pharmacists on the ground to be able to take wise and responsible measures when they consider it necessary to do so."

So in the interests of clarity could I also please have a answer. Does he think the judges of the ECJ were right or not? Does he think non-pharmacist ownership good for the profession or does he not? Does he think that it best for UK citizens to have pharmacists owning this country's pharmacies or not? If the President can't answer these question it is time for him to stand down and let someone who can take over otherwise some might think that his silence does indeed have a sinister intent.

If he'd like me to publish his reponse on the blog I'd be happy to oblige.

We voted for these people......

2009-08-24T20:21:00.016+01:00

......well not entirely because many Members of the soon to be defunct Council of the RPSGB are lay members who have been appointed. When the Society splits they'll be gone leaving us to pick up the pieces. So will the Council but I suspect many of the current pharmacist Council members will stand for election to the National Boards of the PLB at the next election.

If you want to check out who's who in the current "Rogues Gallery" here is the link

The transcript of the recent Council meeting that discussed delaying the RP regulations is now available on-line.

If you wanted RP to be delayed you can see for yourself who let you down.

If you don't want to wade through the whole document then here are a few snippets of the text:-

MR ACRES: I think as a Council we have been behind responsible pharmacist from the beginning. We have had a lot of discussion about it but I personally feel that to delay at this stage would send the wrong message to the profession.

MRS ALLAN: I do not support a delay. I think we should roll this out from 1 October. I think there are a couple of points I would like to make. This is being proposed as being legislation that will make practice safer. Why would we delay something that is going to make practice safer? How would that make us look?

PROFESSOR WILSON: I think it is important that we actually continue with this and I would not support delay. It has been around, it has been discussed extensively. It has been around for two years in various forms. So to say now that we are not expecting it is slightly odd.

PROFESSOR BARBER: Thank you. I voted for delay yesterday. Having heard the discussions since then and the information which comes through, I now do not want to have delay. I think it should go straight ahead.

MR ALEXANDER:I think as a member of Law and Ethics this has come before us. I can see absolutely no reason why this should not be implemented because it is going to be the law of the

land and we should run with that. To move the date is only saying we are not sure about these regulations and I think we are.

MRS KILBY: If the Guild believe that they can do it, then that is absolutely brilliant.

DR CURWAIN: Just briefly, firstly, I am not in favour of delay. We have discussed this for a couple of years or so now and the train has left the station. The point about GSL medicines is very important.

What I wanted to try and do is just to provide Tristan with a little bit of reassurance really. My first question about all this is OK, what is going to be different in terms of I turn up somewhere as the pharmacist on the day? At present I am responsible for what goes on in that pharmacy on the day that as a locum I turn up at it. What happens is I get a capital letter in front of responsible when I turn up after 1 October and there has to be a paper trail and I can actually be absent and the only change that makes is that we can sell paracetamol and stuff like that over the counter, which you would want quite a lot of in a pandemic, to be honest, and you would be probably happy to have people who have the experience of providing advice to sick people

rather than people who work behind the counter in a garage to sell it to them. So, as Gerald points out, it is actually very advantageous.

In terms of the relationship between the responsible pharmacist, with a capital letter, and the superintendent pharmacist, I do not see this changes anything. You still are obliged under the Code of Ethics, if you turn up somewhere and you think, my God, this is so awful, I could not possibly do this, you are really obliged as a professional not to do it. Of course, it is a difficult call to make and in practice this is one of those situations which we discussed which is actually vanishingly rare. It does not happen very often. What you actually do is you do what you think is safe to do on the day without things that you are not going to really make a mess off and put the public at risk, you do not work there again, and you raise it with the organisation. Nothing will

change. That is what we do, as responsible, in large or small letters, pharmacists.

MS MELVILLE: If the Guild of Hospital Pharmacists are happy for it to go ahead in the time scale, then I think it is a positive thing that has come out of this.

My final thing is just from the point of view of the professional leadership body. I think it is very useful for the professional leadership body to have something like this that is making practice safer and that is empowering pharmacists when they are put in a difficult position and they are not sure how to do deal with it, that they have support of the professional leadership body behind them to say you can use this, you know, to stand up and say actually I have turned up at this shop and it is a bit dodgy and I am not going to do this. It empowers pharmacists to practise in a safer manner so just to say that the three Boards are completely behind going ahead with this on 1 October.

MR JOBLING:It has all been under discussion for at least a couple of years. I was the lay person who was involved in the relevant Committee. It was a very, very thorough going process. Everybody was around the table. When I say everybody, the Department of Health, representatives of the other national health authorities, the CCA were there, the Guild were there, I was there, round and round. It was extremely thorough. Actually I have said repeatedly it is one of the best processes I have encountered as one of the contributors to the Council’s work.

DR DUGGAN: However, I would say that we should not delay on two fronts. The first is the legislation which will go ahead in October which is a brave and a good thing to do. The second is not to delay on all of the support that the profession needs out there because the confusion and concern and fear that exists today is not just about responsible pharmacist on 1 October, it is about situations pharmacists find themselves in now.

The vote was lost 18 to 3

Don't forget to read this again when the next election comes round!!!!

Two Broad Spectrums!!!!

2009-08-01T08:07:00.006+01:00

I'm not sure the last time this happened but when you open your PJs today you'll see two Broad Spectrum articles along with plenty of other resources relating to Responsible Pharmacist including a leading article from the editor Olivia Timbs

As usual the Society's and especially the President's response is woefully inadequate.

You can be sure that I will not let them rest for a moment until Safe and Secure running of pharmacies is assured.

Thanks for all your support so far.

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

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

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

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

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

Graeme

Society's Council rejects postponement call

2009-07-29T20:25:00.002+01:00

The Council of the RPSGB today rejected calls to support the campaign to postpone the Responsible Pharmacist regulations. Despite having been sent a petition containing 2800 signatures and which is still growing the Council could not find it in their hearts to heed the warnings being given to them by so many who have singed the petition.

As more details of what went on as the Council meeting become available I will name those responsible.

In the meantime please do everything you can to get as many colleagues and friends to sign the petition.

Thanks as always for all your support.

Graeme

RP campaign swings into action

2009-07-23T12:12:00.006+01:00

The campaign to stop the RP regulations coming into force on 1st October 2009 is now really getting noticed.

Both the Pharmaceutical Journal and Chemist + Druggist have filed reports regarding the PDA campaign and my petition

There has been a some backlash in the letters pages of the PJ this week to rebut the claims of the DoH Clinical Directors.

We do want to control the pharmacies we work in but need some protection from non-pharmacist owners rather martyrdom to achieve that.

Please support the campaign and spread the word.

Thanks as always for your support.

We voted "YES" apparently

2009-07-21T22:08:00.004+01:00

So the Charter vote was won by the "Yes" vote.

Strangely 22.3 % of the register voted and 22.3% of those that voted, voted "No". Wierd.

Current estimates for the cost of the "Yes" campaign are in the region of £130,000

That is nearly £16 of your fees to buy each "Yes" vote.

Moving on.........

The good news is that all the current Members of Council and National Boards can now be replaced in one fell swoop.

LET BATTLE COMMENCE

Why postpone the RP regulations?

2009-07-16T21:59:00.010+01:00

The Responsible Pharmacist (RP) regulations are due to come into force on 1st October 2009. These regulations will make each pharmacist working as a Responsible Pharmacist individually liable for securing the safe and effective running of the pharmacy. If this were possible it would put an enormous amount of power into the hands of the RP. In the majority of cases however pharmacies in the UK are owned by non-pharmacists such as large pan-European wholesalers or Supermarket groups. The RPs will be employees or self employed locums. Such employees and locums rarely have the means to control the environment of pharmacies they work in and because of this will not be able to provide the security that the public might rightly demand.

In a recent case concluded in the European Court of Justice the court made the following statements regarding pharmacy ownership:-

"It is undeniable that a pharmacist, like other persons, pursues the objective of making a profit. However, as a pharmacist by profession, he is presumed to operate the pharmacy not with a purely economic objective, but also from a professional viewpoint. His private interest connected with the making of a profit is thus tempered by his training, by his professional experience and by the responsibility which he owes, given that any breach of the rules of law or professional conduct undermines not only the value of his investment but also his own professional existence.

Unlike pharmacists, non-pharmacists by definition lack training, experience and responsibility equivalent to those of pharmacists. Accordingly, they do not provide the same safeguards as pharmacists."

"The Court also finds that it has not been established before it that a measure less restrictive than the exclusion of non-pharmacists (from the ownership of pharmacies) would make it possible to ensure just as effectively the level of reliability and quality in the provision of medicinal products to the public that results from the application of that exclusion. "

and most importantly:-

"Having regard to the discretion which it is allowed, a Member State may take the view that there is a risk that less restrictive rules designed to ensure the professional independence of pharmacists, such as a system of controls and penalties, would not be observed in practice, given that the interest of a non-pharmacist in making a profit would not be tempered in a manner equivalent to that of self-employed (meaning owner) pharmacists and that the fact that pharmacists, when employees, work under an operator could make it difficult for them to oppose instructions given by him. "

There are many anomalies in the RP regulations but fundamentally they are unworkable, as they stand, because pharmacists will by and large be given power but no control and until some mechanism is put in place to provide control alongside the powers that have been granted the implementation of these regulations should be postponed.

Getting RP delayed - Resources

2009-07-10T22:02:00.007+01:00

Before we can ask for a delay in implementing the Responsible Pharmacist regulations on the grounds that they are neither fit for purpose nor will we be ready to implement them on 1st October 2009 there needs to be proof that these statements are true. Please fill out the PDA survey as soon as possible so that the data can be collected and evaluated.

Message from the PDA Union

PDA Union Survey

LocumVoice survey discussion

LocumVoice Responsible Pharmacist discussion

The APJ Online Facebook group

The LocumVoice Facebook group

Thanks.

RP Petition

2009-07-09T21:39:00.002+01:00

The countdown to the Responsible Pharmacist Regulations Postponement Petition has begun. I will be posting the petition online soon. Check here and on LocumVoice for the web address. I will be mailing everyone who signed the Decriminalisation of Errors Petition asking them to sign. Once the campaign gets underway I hope it will get press coverage again so that we can get as many signatories. We need to apply as much pressure as possible so we can get all-party support for a postponement.

The Daily Mail and another Tesco locum case

2009-07-08T07:44:00.004+01:00

I was phoned up today for comment on the Daily Mail article about the Tesco locum and the baby girl.

It's hard to comment on the story because it contains so many factual inaccuracies but I did take heart from the fact that The Mail did manage at least to call us pharmacists and not chemists as it usually does.

The article also seems to take more of an anti Tesco line than an anti pharmacist line.

The thing that worried me the most was that as an after shock from the Lee case newspapers would be encouraging patients to seek compensation for errors. In my experience an open admission of fault and a close personal relationship with patients smooths the way when problems occur. Corporate pharmacies run constantly on locums is a recipe for disaster in this respect and the sooner the Department of Health follows the European Court of Justice lead and gets us away from the corporate model of community practice the better.

New Minister....New Policy

2009-07-04T08:29:00.002+01:00

BUT NO GOOD NEWS!!!!!

The new pharmacy minister Andy Burnham has rejected a proposal from the pay review body to help retain junior pharmacists in hospitals. This new policy of rejecting the independent pay review body's recommendations gives cold comfort for all health workers.

So we have a new minister, a new policy and no good news.

Victory in Europe

2009-07-02T21:32:00.008+01:00

Following the historic victory of Italian and German pharmacists over the European Commission in the European Court of Justice I have very good reason to believe that legislation protecting the rights of pharmacists to solely own pharmacies is now safe in Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Spain. Other member states that have some restriction on ownership include Bulgaria, Poland and Portugal. Their National Laws are also now I believe safe. The Latvians were unusually already moving in the direction of pharmacies owned by pharmacists despite the Commission's aggressive stance. They should also be safe now. The outstanding cases against Austria, Bulgaria, France, Portugal and Spain will I believe be dropped.

So where does this leave us in the UK and Ireland?

The Commissioner who pursued these cases was the head of the internal market ministry DG Markt. The Irish will be glad to hear that they'll soon be getting their favorite ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr Charlie McCreevy back because his tenure as Commissioner ends at the end of the year. Perhaps he'll be able to advise Minister for Health Mary Harney in her fight with the Irish Pharmacy Union. He's made a career out of pharmacy bashing.

So probably not much can be done at a European level to advance the case in the UK currently.

In the meantime we should all press the RPSGB to issue a statement of congratulation and support to those European Pharmacy Societies that have bothered to support their pharmacists over the years.

You have a new English National Board chairman

2009-07-02T15:32:00.005+01:00

The new ENB Chairman is Brian Curwain and just so English pharmacists know who it is who now heads their Board I'll just point out a letter he has written in the PJ this week.

In this letter he says "The role of the Assembly, made up of board members, is purely one of overarching governance, not policy direction."

That's strange because in the Draft Special Resolution we are being asked to nod through it says:-

8.(1) The control, direction and management of the policies and affairs of the Society shall be vested in the Assembly....

So Brian which is true? If you want to tell us I'll happily give you space on the blog.

In the meantime I'd just say "No".

Our Brian is at it again

2009-07-02T15:13:00.010+01:00

Unbelievably the RP toolkit has been held up as an example of what can be achieved by the National Boards working together in collaboration by none other than new ENB Chairman Brian Curwain.

You'll see from my comment on PJonline that I most certainly do not.

As a friend of mine once said to his boss about something hos boss had produced:

"If I'd handed in a piece of work like that I'd have expected you to sack me!!!!"

What a fantastic response

2009-06-30T21:26:00.008+01:00

The messages of support have been rolling in. With so much happening on the campaign front I doubt I'll be able to reply personally to all of them but let me give all of you that have sent me their best wishes a big blogger hug. It really helps to know that you have support when you're battling against the odds.

Also an interesting thing happened today. A couple of days ago I emailed Mr Charlie McCreevy about the European Court of Justice judgment. It is his Ministry that lost the case it was pursuing against the Italian and German pharmacists. Anyway today someone rang from the European Commission wanting to speak to me. Unfortunately I was working as a locum and couldn't speak but I'll be ringing him in Brussels Thursday. I'll let you all know what comes of it.

International pre-reg pharmacy students demand justice from the Home Office

2009-06-30T13:34:00.005+01:00

A very important issue regarding the way pharmacy students and pre-registration pharmacists are being badly treated has come to my notice.

Please check out the Facebook group if you can help and the link to the PJonline for more information.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=208570245695#/group.php?gid=208570245695

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

Petitions do work!!!!

2009-06-28T20:00:00.002+01:00

If you're reading this then there's a good chance that you signed the Decriminalisation of Errors Petition and you've received an email from me. If not then welcome anyway.

I have written to you and asked you to check out this blog because it seems the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are currently willing to listen, if the members speak.

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

It seems the Petition had an effect and I thank you all most sincerely for that.

There are however a number of vitally important issues before us and I will be setting up more petitions in the coming weeks so your voice can be heard.

These are some of the issues I will be asking you to support:-

1) Responsible Pharmacist regulations to be repealed or at the very least postponed and revised

2) Ownership of pharmacy contracts for dispensing and services to be solely in the hands of pharmacists as recommended by the European Court of Justice.

The Charter vote is already under way so little can be done now to change matters but I would urge you to read the following :-

http://www.pjonline.com/news/for_stability_and_continuity_members_should_say_“no”_to_charter_changes

and think carefully about what an unelected Assemby might mean for the future of our professional body. I voted "No".

Please check this blog regularly to find out about new petitions and progress with the campaigns.

With grateful thanks for you continued support.

Graeme Stafford

What would have happened if?

2009-06-28T19:31:00.002+01:00

Sept 2007 - Elizabeth Lee is arrested

2nd April 2009 - Elizabeth Lee case ends at the Old Bailey

6th April 2009 - PJ reports the case

7th April 2009 - I make the first post on PJ Online. Other LocumVoice members start posting soon after

28th April 2009 - I start the petition

18th May 2009 - RPSGB allow Elizabeth Lee to leave the register

Who was leading who? What would have happened if the members had not given the Society a huge kick up its pompous rear end to get off its backside and actually do something?

.....and the bit that gets up my nose the most:

Online petition
A member (Graeme Stafford) set up an online petition about decriminalising dispensing errors, which the Society publicly supported and urged members to sign.

What relevance is it that I am a member? I didn't set up the petition because I'm a member of the RPSGB. If I set the petition up because I'm a member of something it's because I'm a member of the PDA Union and sit on the Locum Group Committee. If I set the petition up because I'm a member of something it's because I'm a member of LocumVoice.

Those are things of which I'm proud to be a member.

......and does Mr Pruce acknowledge the PDA Union campaign in his PJ piece? It seems it is all the Society's own work and they're happy to take the credit for it.

Once again I'm not happy :-(

I can't take any more!!!!

2009-06-27T23:54:00.008+01:00

Someone at the DoH thinks we need to appear on Hollyoaks to publicise what we do.

I can tell you what I did this Thursday. Checked 600+ items and handed out 25+ Methadones with no proper lunch break.

No more publicity please. Enough is enough.

Just as an aside how is it that French pharmacies close for two hours for lunch and you don't see any corpses lying on their forecourts? Just a thought.

You couldn't make this stuff up

2009-06-27T22:41:00.014+01:00

Everyone, except perhaps Tesco, thinks that criminalising pharmacists is a bad idea but the Responsible Pharmacist regulations introduce at least one new criminal offence for us to be charged with.

Just think. The loo is outside the registered premises. You nip out for a quick one and forget to sign out. Hey!!!! Know what???? You're a criminal. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Unlike many European Professional Bodies our Society has for years said nothing against non-pharmacist owners. The pharmacies that should be ours have over the years passed more and more into the hands of the money men and now the final ignominy.

You can't afford your own pharmacy but you can be responsible for one and if anything goes wrong then, guess what, it's down to you. Brilliant!!!! Ownership without responsibility. Brilliant for the non-pharmacist owners, that is. You couldn't make this stuff up.

The Society is campaigning for errors to be decriminalised at the same time as saying nothing against a new criminal offence coming in to law.

So we already need a new campaign to decriminalise pharmacists.

Will the RPSGB be as ready to claim it as their own this time?

I tell you folks. YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

Please leave TESCO alone!!!!

2009-06-25T07:51:00.003+01:00

A Tesco spokesman has apparently said : “All we have to communicate has already been relayed in court.”

Well that's it then; enough said. We should leave them to get on with making their 3bn profit whilst pharmacist locums should get on with their 10 hour shifts and nothing more should be said about it. OK!!!!!

What sort of question is that?

2009-06-24T22:48:00.009+01:00

DO YOU APPROVE THE CHANGES TO THE SOCIETY'S CHARTER, TO ENABLE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NEW PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP BODY?

Surely that's a loaded question. You'd think the walls of Lambeth are going to crumble into the Thames if you vote "No". Well they won't. Vote "No" and we'll keep a democratically elected Council and things will carry on until membership numbers decide how much needs to change.

DO YOU APPROVE THE CHANGES TO THE SOCIETY'S CHARTER?

That would have been a fairer question in my opinion.

I voted "NO" to undemocratic change. Please do the same. Thanks

Do we really want more Criminal Offences for Pharmacists?

2009-06-24T21:49:00.006+01:00

Isn't it quite unbelievable that as we campaign so hard to rid ourselves of being prosecuted under the Medicines Act we are soon to be burdened by new criminal offences under the Responsible Pharmacist regulations.

Shouldn't pharmacy owners be the responsible for their pharmacies? Where are the Responsible Owner regulations? Where are the Responsible Superintendent regulations? Where are the Responsible Contractor regulations?

I am on record as saying RP could put incredible power into the hands of foot soldiers like me but what chance would I have, faced by the non-pharmacist management and legal teams from the multi-million pound pan-European owners? The European Court of Justice says they should not be allowed to own pharmacies in Germany, France and Italy amongst others. Why do we have to suffer?

Dr. Phil says "Take a Break"

2009-06-24T21:06:00.004+01:00

Well Dr. Phil you may be a good psychologist bit how's your maths?

500 items in 500 minutes = 1 per minute

OK so far?

500 items in 470 minutes = more than 1 per minute

Geddit?

It's not breaks we need to sort out. It's more pharmacists per pharmacy. Then we could take a break and offer extra services. Psychology your way out of that one mate.

So MURs have got to improve have they?

2009-06-24T13:03:00.005+01:00

It seems that the DoH want the quality of MURs to improve accusing some pharmacists of only carrying out MURs to get the associated funding. Isn't it funny that when they negotiate the Contract they talk to non-pharmacist Contractors and when it goes wrong it's the pharmacists that are to blame. Contractors should be pharmacists. Who says so? The European Court of Justice says so. The people I think are responsible for poor MURs are the DoH, PSNC and the non-pharmacist owners who negotiated and voted through the "new" Contract.

DON'T BLAME THE PHARMACISTS (pity the poor, bloody infantry)

More Services or More Pressure - Who Will Decide?

2009-06-23T19:34:00.009+01:00

So the Department of Health is going to prepare a PR campaign for pharmacy and apparently key pharmacy stakeholders will be involved in developing the campaign plan. So who exactly will those stakeholders be? Employees? Locums? They are the poor devils who have to fit ever more demands into the pressurised working day.

My slogan: Just say "NO" to more services whilst they create extra work pressure for the front-line pharmacist and line the pockets of the non-pharmacist owners. The European Court of Justice says it's wrong. SO IT IS WRONG!!!!!

CEO attacks Chairman

2009-06-22T21:28:00.011+01:00

The first letter in the PJ 20th June 2009 is written by the Chief Executive Officer (a non-pharmacist) of the RPSGB. He calls on the profession to unite but then goes on to attack the Chairman of the Pharmacy Defence Association (a pharmacist) .

Isn't it bad enough that so much of our professional lives are blighted by non-pharmacist owners without one of our own being blasted by a Chief Executive whose salary and pension is paid out of our fees. So MK had a little pop at the Society the week before. So what? If you don't like the heat get out of the dispensary, I say. Hmmmm.......come to think of it JH has probably never worked in a dispensary. If he has I'll give him space here to tell us about it.

I'm not happy :-(

Do you have the confidence to say "No"?

2009-06-22T21:05:00.005+01:00

In the leading news article PJ 20th June 2009 Dr Keith Ridge Chief Pharmacist DoH says that pharmacists should have the confidence to say "No" to working in unsafe environments and for employers to maintain safe working conditions.

With the Responsible Pharmacist regulations fast approaching I wonder what Keith has up his sleeve to give us that "Ring of Confidence".

I've no confidence at all that anything will be delivered on that by 1st October and we'll all be left to sink or swim.

If Keith knows different perhaps he'll contact me so I can publish his views.

Whose baby was the Assembly?

2009-06-22T20:47:00.006+01:00

Someone in TRANSCOM must have been responsible for dreaming up "The Assembly"? Just whose idea was it? It's time someone owned up so we can see what lay behind this most undemocratic of ideas.

In my view it is a disaster waiting to happen. It seems the bright spark who came up with it thought it might be "nice" if we had a little change from a democratically elected Council 'coz that's been a bit of a disaster. PLEASE, someone let me know how a non-elected Assembly will be better!!!!

Let's declare "Pharmacy Day" as 19th May

2009-05-27T14:04:00.010+01:00

I propose that we declare 19th May as PHARMACY DAY.

WHY?

That is the day in 2009 that the European Court of Justice ruled that Member States of the EU could restrict the ownership of pharmacies to pharmacists. Prior to this ruling laws to protect the public using this method where being challenged by the European Commission.

http://www.pjonline.com/forum/ecj_judgement_19th_may_2009

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

The question is will The Commission now challenge those Member States where this method of public protection is not in place? I certainly hope so. Watch this space for updates.