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. 

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.........

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. 

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. 

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?