Thursday 11 October 2012

The Conference Season - and the Wurzel Gummidge moment

Over the years my time at the Lib Dem party conference has taken many different forms. 

I remember my first conference - in Brighton - as a day visitor. I knew no-one (other than from the virtual reality world of something called cix) but I soon made friends and really didn't want to go home! 

Needless to say I booked up for the next conference as soon as I could. I was determined to stay the whole week and determined to make my first conference speech. I was lucky and was called on the first card I submitted but it may have helped that I opted to speak in the graveyard slot on Thursday morning (after the Glee club which is like a very, very, boozy Scout/Guide campfire - but without the fire). Oh, and I also found a way of speaking against a motion which was obviously going to find widespread support. I shamelessly followed all the advice about getting called to speak and spoke against a motion saying that contraceptives should continue to be free. My main point was to point out all the anomalies in the existing prescription system and to call for a complete overhaul so my first speech brought together my worlds of pharmacy and politics. 

This was 1997. At the time I was the Town Mayor and had escaped to conference for a couple of days away from the strange political nomansland that Mayors inhabit. Who would notice?

I drove home in a hurry as I had to go shopping for a twinning present as I was off to Battenberg the next day. I vaguely registered the newstand posters proclaiming "Mayor in sex tax row" but assumed it was something to do with the Borough Mayor. I went into our lovely Abbey to buy a suitable twinning gift and the two lovely ladies who helped me choose told me how much they had agreed with what I had said. I smiled and nodded benignly because those who have attended a political party conference will realise that by the end of it most delegates need sleep and a detox. I didn't fully understand that my little speech had become news until I arrived home to find a slightly worried looking son(about 11 at the time) saying, "Don't worry mum - it's only about the pill!'

It was my first big lesson in politics. You should always assume that everything you utter could quickly become public. 

In subsequent years I made more friends and accessed a lot of training to develop my skills as a potential candidate but it was some time before I became confident enough to take the step of trying to become an approved candidate. 

My most surreal conference was in Spring 2000. I went to the conference knowing that I was the candidate in the Romsey by-election, following the sad death of Michael Colvin in a house fire. By some bizarre coincidence we had been in the middle of the selection procedure (for the 2001 election) when the tragedy happened but for obvious reasons had not been able to announce the result. At this conference I was granted a glimpse of things to come - of a world where I would be on show and my time would not be my own. 

In the summer of 2000 I attended my first conference as a Member of Parliament and a member of the Lib Dem health team. I did not know what had hit me because, as the new kid on the block, I was in demand. The day then started with breakfast meetings, followed by parliamentary briefings, speaking in fringes (often 2 or 3 in one slot), whips for crucial conference votes, platform speeches and meetings, meetings, meetings. It was also the first time I had seen many of the by election helpers again so by the end of the conference I was almost hoarse and can vaguely remember screeching my way through "Losing Deposits" with JAckie Ballard at the Glee Club. 

Conferences in my 10 years as an MP were always busy and I was nearly always hoarse by the end but the real low point was when I had the "Women" brief and the party debated its selection procedures for Europe. I won't bore people with the details but, for me, it was the most depressing conference ever and by the end of it I felt I had found out who my friends were. 

The first conference after the 2010 election was truly horrible and the only saving grace was that it was in Liverpool. I only stayed for a couple of days because my mum had just died - but maybe that gave me the excuse to slope away. There were lots of hugs and commiserations and it was a chance to catch up with old friends but at this stage I decided to stand for election to a couple of the party committees. 

I was elected to the Federal Conference Committee and this gave the next few conferences a completely different dimension. Suddenly I was in a world of agenda setting, help desks, Ministerial surgeries and learning how to chair conference debates which is rather more complex than you might think as you soon learn that Lib Dems love their standing orders and you have to try and be one step ahead. I have also been very keen to make sure that we debate the hot issues of the day (such as the Health and Social Care Bill) and not sweep them under the carpet. I've really enjoyed the last few conferences though as there has been work to do but I haven't ended up completely shattered and without a voice. 

Now we get to the pharmacy bit (if any pharmacists have lasted this far). At this year's conference in Brighton I had been asked to speak at two fringe events on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (I'm an English Pharmacy Board member). I had previously spoken at similar events in my role as a member of the Lib Dem Health Team. 

There were two fringes. The first was public health on trial - shared with the gastroenterologists and the opticians and we had to defend ourselves against the accusation that we had failed to deliver public health. There was also a speaker from local government, which is very appropriate as local government will play a big part in the commissioning of health services. I was pleased with the outcome as the audience decided that the health professionals were not guilty of not delivering and I have to say that the political audience did somewhat realise that the problems lay with the lack of funding and foresight displayed by politicians. The high spot for me was when Baroness Jolly said that pharmacists could hold their heads up high when it came to delivering on public health. 

The second debate was shared with Baroness Young from Diabetes Uk and Clare Gerada from the Royal College of GPs. It was a fantastically, lively fringe and the room was packed with many people forced to stand. Clare G was typically robust but there was consensus around access to care records and some rather unexpected support from representatives of the Dispensing Doctors Association and a couple of GPs in the audience who wanted to work out how to make more of pharmacists. 

There was a moment in the discussion when I could not make a pharmacy point as the question was not relevant but there was a political point to be made. When you have an answer to a question it is difficult for a politician to be silent but as the point was not overtly party political I felt justified in commenting by telling the audience that in true Gummidge mode I was removing pharmacy head and putting on a politician's head!

The session was ably and robustly chaired by Lord Victor Abedowale who is a member of the National Commissioning Board. I was delighted when he came up to me afterwards and told me that he thought many of my comments had been spot on and it had made him realise that "we need to make better use of pharmacists".

I am still following two slightly different paths although at the moment I only have one head. At a party level I am standing for re-election to the Federal Conference Committee and at another level I am busy responding to many of the people I spoke to at conference and reminding them what pharmacy can do or how pharmacy can work positively with their organisation.  Hopefully, both will be productive.

Wednesday 12 September 2012

RPS Conference

I'll come clean - as Board members we do get a reduced rate but we do not get all our expenses covered unless we are chairing a session or speaking in some capacity. 

The venue this year was Birmingham - something of a change from the London campuses of recent years  - and I have to say that I much preferred it. It was possible to find a relatively cheap hotel, although I wasn't sure I wanted to be quite so close to something called the Rocket club, and transport links are fairly good. 

I know that Birmingham is also a pretty good shopping centre but I resisted the temptation to bunk off because, as a board member, I thought it was important to access as much of the conference as possible and also to speak to as many people as possible. 

I'm not going to give a blow by blow account but there are some highlights worthy of mention.   The whole event got off to a flying start with an innovative and energising presentation from Professor Eddie Obeng. He managed to get delegates interacting with each other and provided much food for thought and my only criticism was that the session was too short. My other personal highlight was the speech given by David Nicholson, Chief Exec of the NHS Commissioning Board. His speech was entirely without notes and he gave the clear message that we should be doing more to make sure that we were an indispensable part of the commissioning landscape. He clearly understood the contribution that pharmacy can make but wasn't going to spoonfeed the profession. 

There were a host of other presentations but I did wonder on some occasions whether we had the right format. In some sessions we had four loosely connected presentations and although there were questions after there was not really any scope for a wider debate. I may be the oddball here because I am used to the party conference format where there is a bit more of a free for all discussion after presentations so I will be particularly interested in the conference feedback. 

One thing I did note was the absence of some of the great and good. Looking through the attendance list I was surprised not to see some of the more well known names from the Corporate sector although the NPA were well represented. That said, I think there is a challenge for all of us in trying to attract more people. I, for one, got a lot out of the sessions and I know that other community pharmacists would benefit. So, why don't more people come? There is a cost but, in the grand scheme  of things, it is not onerous. So, is the content wrong or would attendance still be low whatever we did to improve things? Answers on a postcard please.........

Meet the pre regs - Great Western LPF

Each board member is allocated a Local Practice Forum or two (or even three) and the idea is that we provide a link to the English Pharmacy Board. Boards also have a dedicated administrator so, in theory, there should be plenty of linkage between the RPS and its members. 

Being the new girl I did not get my first choice but I was happy to be allocated Great Western as it is not that far away and I studied at Bath. I was a little more concerned about being allocated Peninsula (Devon and Cornwall) but this was because the physical distance means that it is less easy to actively keep in touch in the hands on way I would prefer. Having said that though, it's not all bad because hopefully I can combine the occasional visit with a catch up with some of my mates in that region. 

So, I was quite pleased when I realised that I could actually make the social event in Bristol to which all the pre reg students were invited along to meet the steering group. The aim was to try and engage and also to encourage the students to sign up as associate members of the RPS. 

So, I chatted to some of the attendees and asked why they had come. Some mentioned that free food and drink is always good and I reflected that this is an adage which seems to ring true for students, conference attendees and even MPs. Flippancy aside, it was clear that many of the attendees wanted to become involved in shaping the profession and were already associate members of the RPS. Even more encouragingly, some of the steering group were still well within the first flush of youth which helped to make the whole thing more relevant. 

I had headed for the event thinking that I would be making a short presentation on the benefits of joining the RPS but Phil Rogers had other ideas and with a few moments to spare he told me that he wanted me to "say something inspirational". This is not always the easiest thing to do at the drop of a hat if you want to make it relevant and want to avoid sounding cheesy but I picked up on a few of the things the students had mentioned, tried to make it humorous and tried to leave things on a positive note. Hopefully it worked and I captured the moment and it would be great to feel that someone was a teensy bit inspired.  As I write this I recall an occasion when I addressed a group of students who had just been handed their GCSE certificates. I spoke about being true to yourself and if you knew you were doing something that was't right for you then only you had the power to change it, It was OK at the time but a couple of week's later I was hounded down in Waitrose by an irate mother shouting, "Mrs Gidley? I want a word with you!"  (It was always a bad sign if I was Mrs Gidley and not Sandra). It transpired that her son had taken my words to heart and completely changed his A levels telling them that the MP had told him it was OK!. I asked what the problem was and it seemed to boil down to the fact that parents preferred the academic first choice rather than the arty preferences of their son. I asked if he was happy. The mother looked at me blankly and I repeated the question. "Well," she replied, "I suppose he is at least going to college now and not bunking off!" I do not know the longer term outcome of the story and will never know if the young man felt he had made the right choice but it can be quite powerful knowing that your words gave someone the confidence to do something. I hope that in some small way I gave someone some confidence that night. 


There is a prologue to this event. I had decided to travel down by train, mainly because I don't like driving alone at night in strange cities. I was assured that I would be back at the station in time to catch the last train home. Unfortunately the event overran slightly (not me - honest!) and my lift still had to pack some things up so a very kind lady offered me a lift to the station. Unfortunately, she was parked a little further away than we had bargained for and despite taking my shoes off so I could trot along more easily I missed the train by a couple of minutes. This meant I had to take the next train to Salisbury followed by a very expensive taxi ride home. So much for my attempt to be more green!

Friday 10 August 2012

So, what _do_ people want from the RPS?

Once a week I have the luxury of working with a second pharmacist and I nearly always ask them whether they belong to the RPS. Sadly, most don't and a sheepish "no" is usually rapidly followed by a permutation of the following

"I belong to the PDA because I know they will help me if things go wrong"

"I can get the information I want by calling the NPA"

"I can't see what value I get from it"

"They've never done much for me"

"Now that locum rates are going down I have to think hard about expenditure" - one locum followed this up by saying that times were so hard he could no longer afford to shop in Tesco and would have to go to Asda!

So, I then ask what the society needs to do to persuade them to join and, sadly, I never really receive an answer. 

I was thinking about this the other day after a conference call with Howard Duff, the Director for England. The reason for the call was to discuss the future work plan and he was seeking ideas prior to the strategy day at which the priorities will be set. 

I realised I was probably thinking a little too strategically and broad brush when he said to me, "What I really want are some smart objectives. Some pieces of work that have a tangible outcome and benefit members and potential members"

It's a deceptively simple question because many of my first thoughts were already being taken on by others. For example, educational matters are the province of CPPE, although LPCs are getting in on the act and many companies provide ongoing training. Workplace pressures are being tackled by some of the "Just Culture" work although most pharmacists I speak to are completely unfamiliar with the phrase and concept and it is often hard to measure the impact of an individual organisation's lobbying. 

I've become very exercised by some of the issues I discover on a day to day basis in the areas of "transfer of care" and monitored dosage systems but it is not clear what precise actions the RPS can take to build on the recently produced "Transfer of Care" Document although it did strike me that a definitive guide to pros and cons of MDS and other aids to patient compliance would probably help reduce bad practice - if everyone read it. So, I am giving the matter some thought over the weekend but if you have an answer to the question:

"Name one thing/resource the RPS could do" 

let me have your ideas and I promise I will feed them into the process. 


Monday 23 July 2012

Media Strategy Day -

Dear Reader

I did promise to keep you informed about what I (and the Board) was doing on your behalf but at the risk of sounding like Fifty Shades of the Pharmacy Board I have to tell you that today my hands are tied. 

Some of the board members met today for a strategy meeting which focussed mainly on the media but at the outset of the meeting we were told that it was commercial in confidence. 

Actually, there weren't that many parts of the meeting which I thought were that sensitive but it is a fact that board members do have to be able to trust each other in these situations. 

So, as we all stood on a platform of increased openness I assume that this was a "one-off" and I will respect the agreement made at the beginning of the meeting. If this is not a one off then you will be informed _ and I will feel free to challenge future reporting restrictions!

Selling the Family Silver - part 2

My earlier post about the potential sale of the RPS building at Lambeth appears to have ruffled a few feathers but all I will say is that my account was factually accurate and the only people who objected were those who were not privy to the conversations I had.


But, it is only fair to add to my earlier comments following a briefing I had earlier today. As I said in my earlier blog post no decision has yet been made although the matter is up for discussion at this week's Assembly meeting. 


The situation is quite straightforward. The GPhC agreed to share the building for two years and have extended the contract to 2014 (although there will be changes with respect to the parts of the building they occupy). 


The RPS is a much leaner organisation than the old RPSGB and cannot afford to be the sole occupants of the building. The options would appear to be to try and market the space for functions, to find alternative tenants or to sell and look for more appropriate accommodation. 


I must stress that no decision has yet been made but I did notice when I came into London on the train that there is a lot of empty office space in the area so it is difficult to see how realistic it will be to find suitable tenants for the building. 


But, at the end of the day, how many pharmacists actually feel any sort of bond with the Lambeth HQ? One of the best kept secrets is that all members can use the rooftop restaurant but few members avail themselves of this facility. 


So, if the RPS can find more appropriate London based accommodation (and preferably buy it) and we can ensure that we retain the museum collection would anybody actually care? 


The old RPSGB moved from Bloomsbury in the 1970s (I think - although it may have been early 1980s) and the world didn't end. 


What's in a building? I used to do a lot of work with the NCT and they moved from pukka Bloomsbury premises to Acton and the organisation has gone from strength to strength. The ABPI has recently moved to smaller offices and at the same time has a newly invigorated profile. 


It will, however, be interesting to see what the assembly decide.........

Sunday 22 July 2012

What is an acceptable workload for a pharmacist?

I had an 11 year gap in practice and one of the big changes is the increase in the number of unqualified staff in management positions and, in some ways, the demotion of the pharmacist to what can only be regarded as "a legal necessity". 


I was told last week that it was not unreasonable for a pharmacist to be able to check 600 prescriptions plus carry out two MURs a day and deal with NMS, counter queries, register entries etc. I work for 510 minutes a day so the checking etc has to be at the rate of less than one item a minute. I generally "cope" with this but quite a lot of pharmacists leave a lot of work to be picked up the next day and when I am one down in the dispensary not all runs as smoothly as I would like. But, if I am honest, I am not providing the sort of service I really want to and the area that is skimped on becomes the customer facing aspect of the job which is the one I like best. 


I mention this because RPS is very interested in workplace pressures and this has been identified by the Board as a priority issue. If pharmacists are stretched like this there are a number of questions to be asked. The first is to ask whether it is safe? The second is to ask how on earth new services will fit into the equation. That's before you even start to think about whether best use is being made of the pharmacist's time and skills. 


But this is not a matter for the RPS alone and the GPhC should be starting to define what is an acceptable and safe load for a community pharmacist. The PSNC should then be working to make sure that these standards are worked into the payment system. 


I would be interested to hear the views of others on this subject so please contact me on sandra.gidley@englishpharmacyboard.org







What do board members do between meetings?

The first thing that hits you when you become a Board member is the deluge of e-mails and the forest's worth of paper that hits the doormat. At this point you are still caught up in the euphoria of winning and dealing with the paperwork is a pleasure rather than a problem. 

Bring on the first board meeting and then you start to get to know the other members of the Board. There was a lot on the agenda and, so that we could complete the business, many items had action points which weren't fully resolved and there was a commitment to sort out the detail by e-mail. Also - as there are only four EPB meetings a year then there is inevitably a certain amount of business which has to be done by e-mail. 

The number of e-mails I receive daily has increased considerably and it has been a struggle to keep up with everything. By nature my default mode is not "reply all" but others take a different view. 

It became hard to separate the wheat from the chaff and I was later than hoped in replying to a consultation or two but happily the situation has now improved, I have caught up with the backlog and am now back on track responding to things more or less the day they come in. One thing is apparent though and that is the difference between those who work at the sharp end of community pharmacy and those who work in desk based jobs, or are self employed, and who are able to reply to e-mails instantly.

So, apologies for not being more current in my blog but normal service has now been resumed. 

Wednesday 4 July 2012

Girls Girls Girls!

Others have commented that the gender balance of the English Pharmacy Board does not reflect the gender balance of the profession as a whole. Rachel Airley has also commented that the women on the new board are a force to be reckoned with. Let's take all that as a given. 


I want to use this post to reflect on three impressive women on the RPS staff - and before anyone whinges I will just point out that I am sure there will be other impressive women to comment on in the future. 


So, who are my top three so far?


First mention must go to Helen Gordon. Nobody has a bad word to say about her and she has certainly steered the embryonic RPS through some difficult times. I am looking forward to getting to know her better. It is a shame she is not a pharmacist but this brings me neatly to.......


Catherine Duggan. Director of Professional Development and Support at RPS. She is an interesting character and was once an elected member of the RPSGB. Her presentation to the new EPB was packed full of emerging initiatives (would love to say more but am reluctant to steal her thunder) and I can categorically state that she is the Director who impressed me the most. It may just have been the way she presented herself but she came across as a powerhouse of ideas and activity. Only ten percent of her work is visible at this point in time so I have nicknamed her "the iceberg"


Yvonne - who is the administrator to the board and works with Howard Duff, the Director for England. She is truly impressive. I e-mail her at mid-night and the reply is waiting on my BlackBerry as I roll in to work before 9 the next morning. If the reply is a holding reply I invariably have a reply in my inbox before I next log on at lunchtime. She even managed to answer my convoluted questions about the election process so it is a big thank you from me. 


So - why have I bothered to mention this?


It just struck me that it is easy to write a blog knocking the status quo and it is potentially less interesting to say who is doing a good job. It seemed only fair to put down a marker so that people do not take my other blog posts out of context. The RPS is not a perfect organisation (is there such a thing?) but many of the staff are doing a damn good job trying to make it one. All I am saying is that I may appear to knock from time to time but I also hope that I will be equally free to point out some of the good work that is going on. 

Tuesday 3 July 2012

EPB coverage in the PJ

Over recent weeks a lot of people have expressed a degree of concern over the PJ. These concerns seem to revolve mostly around its diminishing number of pages and the fact that it appears to be printed on Izal these days (incidentally - Izal is great for cleaning flutes). 

I'm afraid the PJ didn't get off to the greatest of starts with the new board, mainly because there was scant coverage of the election results. The Editor claimed that it had "slipped her mind" but this really didn't wash because the Editorial in the post-election edition bemoaned the low election turnout. You can't have it both ways! 

Now, could it be that the low turnout is partly due to the fact that the PJ rarely seems to report anything that goes on at EPB meetings? There used to be quite detailed accounts of the old RPSGB Council meetings and, if you were desperate for more, you could always read the transcripts online.  There are no longer transcripts of meetings and no PJ reports so, despite the improved openness of the meetings (I was horrified when I attended a meeting as an observer in 2001 only to find that a lot of the business was not open) the information flowing to the members is greatly reduced. 

All I do know is that the lack of reporting is blamed on the reduced number of staff and that the PJ were only in attendance for the first hour of the Board meeting (covering the elections). The reason for the low attendance was because the Pharmaceutical Care Awards were being held later that  day. I was a little surprised that the Awards had even been arranged for the same day as the inaugural meeting of the new Board, especially as the RPS is a joint sponsor and I began to wonder why no one seemed to keep a diary! 

Later that day I became even more annoyed because I attended the awards and realised that there were six members of Pharmaceutical Press staff present at a time when we had been told how stretched they all were.....

But this is an aside really because the $64,000 question is to ask whether RPS Members actually want to know what the Boards are doing on their behalf or whether they want a more clinical focus. I think the cover story in the post election edition was itchy skin - at a time when many Board Members were itching to see their success reported.

I am sure that in time this will be resolved but it will be useful to have a heads up about what RPS members think of the PJ. I can recall the days when the front cover was all print and the most interesting read was the quarterly toxicology report! It has improved immensely over the 30 plus years I have been on the register but, in its current state, is it fit for purpose?

Pharmacy politicians - an unlikely coalition

Those who know me from politics know that I am not the biggest fan of the coalition government and, a string of closely fought elections has left me with a slightly jaundiced view of Tories although there were a few Tory parliamentarians who I regard as friends. 


So, I wondered how I would get on with newly elected board member Sibby Buckle who has stood as a parliamentary candidate for the Conservatives at Westminster and at European level. At first glance she looked quite daunting - one of those amazing women who looks like she gets out of bed with every hair immaculately in place but closer acquaintance, helped by a glass of wine or two revealed that we think alike on a lot of issues and she also has a great sense of humour and a fierce streak of independence.


Most importantly, we were of like mind over the first paper that was presented to the EPB - which dealt with the subject of pharmacy presence at party conference. The broad analysis of strategy was OK - in short the RPS now joins in with an organisation called the Health Hotel. This means that we can organise a joint fringe with other Health Hotel partners, use the HH area as a base for lobbying and attend a number of HH events such as a round table event and a late evening reception which is one of the best health networking events around. 


Unfortunately last year the RPS did not take advantage of the opportunity to organise a Fringe meeting and was conspicuous by its absence at the reception. I do not know whether any lobbying took place but I do know that NPA and PSNC were there and I introduced pharmacists to our health Minister, Paul Burstow, and to a number of MPs and Peers who had health-related interests. I compared notes with Sibby only to discover that this level of inactivity also applied to the Conservative Party Conference. 


We were also unimpressed that the recommendation in the paper was to take a second member of staff to conference because we couldn't think what they were going to do. We had both independently arrived at the conclusion that as we had an EPB board member going to two of the conferences anyway that it made sense to use us and save the Society a bit of money. We were fairly sure that there must be a pharmacist somewhere who is planning to attend the Labour Party conference. 


Another board member ventured the opinion that other EPB members would also have the necessary skills to attend but I think he missed the basic point about cost saving because we were attending anyway. 


Leading on from this Sibby had an excellent idea about forming a group of pharmacists who had an interest in politics and public affairs so that we could make the most of their skills. The next step is to make sure that the idea bears fruit and is not quietly buried. 


It was interesting to me that the first subject on the agenda involved politics but what interested me more was the very different attitude that Sibby and I brought to the table. We were able to challenge the status quo because we know the system inside out and we felt justified in pushing for more to be done. I am really looking forward to doing more work with her in the future. 





Monday 2 July 2012

The English Pharmacy Board elections

My first EPB meeting started with the election of Chair. 


There were two candidates and we all received their election statements just over a week before the election. 


I was told by a third party that I ought to support candidate A. I suggested to said third party that A could ring me because I had no idea what made A tick and did not feel inclined to blindly follow someone I knew next to nothing about. 


In the mean time B had called me and outlined a very inclusive vision for the EPB. 


I waited and waited and there was no contact from A. 
A third party told me that I should pick up the phone and speak to A. But - hang on a minute. A wants my vote so why  am I the one that should be proactive? Trouble is, I have been used to a world where people constantly asked me for their support - I never had to go touting it around. And, if someone wants to chair the English Pharmacy Board, isn't that a Leadership role? Doesn't leadership involve being proactive? I can recall when John Bercow wanted to become Speaker of the House - he picked up the phone and rang many people himself and that clinched it for me. 


During the induction day A did not speak to me and B did. 


By now you will have guessed that I voted for B. B lost. It was clear that a lot of mutual backscratching had been organised. The outcome of the vote for Vice Chair and the votes for the Assembly were fairly predictable (although the Assembly threw up one surprise). 


Welcome to the world of the EPB. 


I won't pretend that I wasn't disappointed not to be elected to the Assembly but that feeling was short lived because I quickly realised that most of the issues I am interested in are dealt with by the EPB, and not the Assembly,  and I will now be able to spend the next year really getting to know the organisation and getting involved in the issues which interest me. The new board is larger, with some feisty members and some independent thinking so I predict that there will not be any particular faction that rules the roost. 


In the mean time I wish the new Chair and Vice Chair well for what promised to be a busy and stimulating year. 







A tour of the building - selling the family silver

At the end of the induction day we were offered a tour of the building. This would not usually even be worthy of passing comment. 


We were taken up to the top floor and shown the amazing view. Our guide mentioned in passing that "we always point this out to people who are interested in buying". 


I queried this. I had read the assembly papers. Surely no decision had been taken? 


We were then informed that RPS were in the process of collecting bids. 


Again we queried the fact that no final decision had been taken. 


We were getting nowhere fast but it was apparent to all of us that the somewhat coy Assembly minutes (and also the assurances of Assembly members) bore no resemblance to the activities being undertaken by RPS staff. Make no mistake, there seems to be a real head of steam behind the move to sell the building and it was hard to establish whether any other options were being actively pursued at all. 


So, the question really is to ask whether members think this is worth fighting over. It smacks of selling the family silver and there is no hint of what it will be replaced by. My gut feeling is that this does not seem right - what do others think?

Induction Day at RPS

I am not the sort of person who arrives early for anything and I don't like getting up early so it was almost inevitable that I was almost late for the start of the induction day but happily I had my pass photo taken and even managed to grab a cup of coffee and hug a few people before plonking myself down in the only available place to await death by powerpoint. 


Things got off to a slow start and I thought I might scream if I heard the word organogram one more time but it was interesting to observe some of my fellow board members. Some were strangers to me, a couple I had worked with and known for some time and others I had met at All Party Pharmacy Group Meetings or at various receptions or dinners. When you are an MP most people are usually nice to you - when you are on equal terms with people they are more likely to reveal their true colours and I had to come to some decisions about who I wanted to vote for the next day.


What struck me most powerfully was that there are relatively few people trying to do an awful lot of work and most of it is not readily visible to the membership. 


I jotted down a few notes on my iPad - mainly about things which gave me food for thought. 


1. "Board members have a governance duty which can conflict with being an elected member"


I was a little concerned about this as  having spent ten years representing people it came as a shock to be told that that was not why I was really there!  I will have to see how this all pans out in practice because as far as I can see, I stood as a community pharmacist and I very much see my role as tackling the many concerns and issues faced by my colleagues. Hopefully there won't be a conflict in practice but as far as I am concerned I want to be a voice of the members to the board and use that position to advance the standing of pharmacy generally. Watch this space. 


2. "We have moved from support to each individual member to thinking about how to support the profession at large". I can see why this decision was taken but if we veer too far from the situation of supporting individuals then this could have an adverse impact on membership. 


3.  We have 34 partner organisations - but I have yet to find out who they are


4. "Buildings and assets are not member owned they are corporately owned" - some huge implications here which will be dealt with in a separate post. 


5. Consultations - one member of staff deals with all of these  and there are a number of ways of dealing with them depending on the size and perceived importance of the consultation. What was clear was that my days reading policy documents have clearly not come to an end.  There will eventually be a page for policy on the website (I hate words like eventually). 


6. The LPFs. Some of these have been slow to get off the ground and this is hardly surprising since (purely my opinion here) they cover too large a geographical area and are serviced by relatively junior staff who are hard pushed to do all that is necessary. Ash Soni pointed out how important it was that LPFs start performing and that there was a need to think about changing boundaries so that they could align with the emerging LPNs. 


7. Catherine Duggan was particularly impressive and is working hard on a lot of initiatives. I was interested to learn, when chatting to her, that her motivation was the lack of proactivity she had witnessed when she had been a Member of the old RPSGB. 


8. "Brand Ambassadors" - we had a session on social media and were told that even when tweeting in a private capacity our comments could have an impact on the brand. I did rather get the impression that they were warning us off blogs and twitter but I really like twitter and I promised that I would write a blog. The trouble is that my style can border on the irreverent and I do usually see the funny side of things. I am human and I also think that blogs are more interesting if they contain some human detail rather than a cold relaying of fact.  Hmmmmmm. 
Maybe I have to set some ground rules for this blog. I assume it is ok to report what people said in meetings but when it comes to the more social aspects should that be reported? I know I can only report what we discussed in open business but what about side business and conversations with staff? I can see that I am going to have to tread my way carefully here but I have always made it my business to be open and shine a light on what goes on behind the scenes. I see no reason to change. 

Voting - update

For those of you who care a jot about why the person with the most votes to the English Pharmacy Board is only elected for two years and the person who came second is elected for three......


The rules state that the person in the community sector with the highest number of votes will  take the community pharmacy employee place - unless that person is a locum who will take the place reserved for a community pharmacy locum. Both of these places were allocated to year 2. Once these two places are filled the next place is allocated to the more generic community position which happens to give you a three year term this time around. 


So, in effect (leaving locums aside), the last English Pharmacy Board approved a system in which the highest placed community pharmacist would only be elected for two years and the next placed  would be elected for three. 


It really does tempt me to ask whether they actually understood what the system they approved.......



Tuesday 12 June 2012

It's an election Jim - but not as we know it

Naturally, I was elated to learn that I had been elected to the English National Pharmacy Board and even more pleased that I would have at least two years in which I could get stuck in and make things happen. I naively assumed that all of those who had been elected for three years had polled more highly than those who had been elected for two years - or even one. Some of us then started to compare notes. 


The full breakdown of results can be found here. From my perspective it seemed fairly logical that I had the seventh highest vote and  was elected to serve a two year term. But, current President, Martin Astbury must be feeling a little hacked off because he topped the poll only to find that he also faces re-election after two years and Sid Dajani, who came second, is safe for three years. Even stranger, Graham Phillips, who came fourth in the poll will have to put himself up for re-election after a year. 


There were two female academics slugging it out for the academic post. Rachel Airley polled 128 more votes than Claire Anderson but it is Claire who is elected for three years and Rachel who is only safe for two years. 


How can this be right?


Close inspection of the voting rules shows that the sectoral places are the first to be filled (this is a change from the previous board elections) but some fairly arbitrary rules appear to have been applied with regard to which sectoral posts are elected in each part of the three year electoral cycle. If you top the poll in the community, hospital, primary care or industrial pharmacist category you are elected for three years. If you top the poll in the academic world then you are only elected for two years. So this means that Rachel, who topped the poll, is elected for two years and Claire, who came second but also had the highest vote once the sectoral places had been filled, is elected for three!!


If you are still with me then let's have a look at the category in which I stood - community. I was beaten by David Carter and Graham Phillips but they have one year places and I have two because I managed to get a place under the any sector criteria. 


Those are the rules I understand but I really can't understand why Martin and Sid both stood for "Any sector and community employee" and the one with the highest vote isn't elected for the longest period of time. 


All of this does upset my sense of fair play and I will get an answer to the Sid/Martin question but ultimately there are too many issues facing the profession and obsessing about an election system will not move us forward. 


I apologise for being very nerdy in my first blog post as an elected pharmacy representative but it seemed a fitting bridge between my past parliamentary life and my current pharmacy world. However, I have now begun to fulfil one of my election promises which was to blog about my life on the RPS. There will be more to come and I welcome feedback  and questions from anyone who may be reading this.