Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sciety or Royal College

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sciety or Royal College

    Quite noteworthy that with all the postings in the PJ on the subject, no-one here has yet mentioned the possuble change.

  • #2
    Re: Sciety or Royal College

    well we have Graham phillips giving a talk on changes at Cambridge branch on Wed 23rd. Suggest those local should come as meeting fixed before Lord Hunt's letter to PJ last week.

    Those who the Gods wish to destroy, they first send mad.
    johnep

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sciety or Royal College

      I think we should have a inclusive Royal College (for Pharmacist and non-pharmacists)
      Kemzo the pharmacist forumly known as kemzero

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Sciety or Royal College

        One thing Kem. Do you feel that the Soc has done all it can to support and represent pharmacy?

        This may be a chance to get a body that does just that, do you really want
        an inclusive body where pharmacists would more than likely be outnumbered?

        Where would technicians stand on remote dispensing? I doubt they'd see the problems the same way pharmacists would.

        I agree that techs etc. can give valued input but they already have APTUK what's wrong with associate/affiliate membership for techs or APTUK as a whole?

        Someone on a well known e-mail listing site (;-) Admin) has just pointed out that if the RPSGB is wound up then the whole definition of a pharmacist could be rewritten. We must be very careful that pharmacists don't become the baby thrown out with the bath water.
        Linnear MRPharmS

        Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: The biggest cause of brain damage and 100% preventable.

        In pregnancy: 1 fag is not safe, 1 x-ray is not safe and 1 drink is not safe.



        For handy pharmacy links try
        pharmacistance.co.uk

        If you like my posts or letters in the journal try my books!
        eloquent-e-tales

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Sciety or Royal College

          With the new regulator on the horizon make sure that all your CPD is recorded. My feeling is that a govt regulator will be very strict with pharmacists. Why - because they can.
          47 BC : Julius Cesar : Veni Vidi Vici : I came, I saw I conquered.
          2018 AD : Modern Man : I shopped, I clicked, I collected.
          How times change.

          If you find you have read something that has upset or offended you an anyway please unread it at once.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Sciety or Royal College

            Originally posted by the old merlin View Post
            Quite noteworthy that with all the postings in the PJ on the subject, no-one here has yet mentioned the possuble change.
            Try reading the thread: -

            http://www.pharmacy-forum.co.uk/phar...l-college.html
            Lively debate is encouraged but please respect the opinions and feelings of others.
            Please help keep the forum vibrant by spreading the work to friends and colleagues via word of mouth or social media.
            Thank you for contributing to this site.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Sciety or Royal College

              In the early days of pharmacy, existing 'apothecaries' were taken onto the register. Qualification as a pharmacist was 4 years apprenticeship and nine months at college.
              Perhaps we are returning to this,
              johnep

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Sciety or Royal College

                Linnear (and fellow colleagues)

                Techs should be allowed to join the prospective Royal College.They should not be left to support/fend for themselves as pharmacy should be one big famiy.Exclusion could lead to the creation of scavengers (warning:scavengers could damage your health) Jokes aside we need them and they need us, they are now a very important fabric of our everyday professional life;besides pharmacists need them to further evolve.
                I am not advocating that they should be given full membership as this would make a mockery of the Royal College because it will in turn mean that the minimum entry requirement for membership to the proposed"elite "college is a NVQ level 3 qualification...this will make us /the college a laughing stock amongst our peers (GPs,Nurses,Dentists, Optometrists etc) The minimum entry requirement has to be a Degree.Techs should be offered associate membership,if they acquire a degree and pass an exam,let them in as full members
                "All animals are equal,but some are more equal than others" George Orwell ,Animal Farm- We are equal as professionals but not education and knowledge ;as NVQ level 3 probably equates to AS level or at the very best 2 A-levels at C grade.
                Pharmacists should not oppose to techs joining the proposed college as most of them realise that NVQ level 3 does not by any means equate to MPharm.

                As for the issue of remote supervision, it will only be for a set period maximum 2 hours and the p'cist will still have overall responsibility (thats if it ever goes ahead!) Pharmacists will always need to ensure a prescription is pharmaceutically valid and suitable;removing a p'cist from the equation will be catastrophic for patient care which will no doubt be severely compromised.
                The American army have realised this, they have practiced remote supervision for years, but now laws have been put in place to reverse this due to various incidents.

                we need a Royal college that will be a beacon of knowlegde,education and development....a force to be reckoned with both at home and abroad;an institution that would be responsible for the advancement of all phamacy staff. Pharmacists and their support staff should champion excellent pharmaceutical care and the level of service provision should be standardised by this college.

                Recently I did a locum and had to check of a repeat prescription for an 86yr old woman which called for Nitrazepam 10mg od and Glibenclamide 5mg tds, I refused to dispense it ;but the tech couldn't understand why as it had never been questioned before! We all need to be educated together ,CPD etc,high standards for every Pharmacy member;techs should be able to highlight errors like this ; agree a strategy with the pharmacist ,who will in turn advise the GP....we all need to work together....unity and togetherness will be pharmacys' strength!
                Last edited by kemzero; 22, May 2007, 07:32 PM.
                Kemzo the pharmacist forumly known as kemzero

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Sciety or Royal College

                  Misunderstood you Kem!

                  Most people talking of an inclusive RC seem to mean Phc and Techs on an equal footing.

                  I agree that at the moment remote supervision does follow your statement and I will fight all the way to keep it that way but with the Soc being disbanded who knows where we might end up?

                  Techs definitely have a place in our future and could have a place in a RC but not on an equal footing. (IMO)
                  Linnear MRPharmS

                  Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: The biggest cause of brain damage and 100% preventable.

                  In pregnancy: 1 fag is not safe, 1 x-ray is not safe and 1 drink is not safe.



                  For handy pharmacy links try
                  pharmacistance.co.uk

                  If you like my posts or letters in the journal try my books!
                  eloquent-e-tales

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Sciety or Royal College

                    Originally posted by Linnear View Post
                    Misunderstood you Kem!

                    Most people talking of an inclusive RC seem to mean Phc and Techs on an equal footing.

                    I agree that at the moment remote supervision does follow your statement and I will fight all the way to keep it that way but with the Soc being disbanded who knows where we might end up?

                    Techs definitely have a place in our future and could have a place in a RC but not on an equal footing. (IMO)
                    Agree with that - without good technicians nothing happens. Look at it in a selfish way - good technicians make us look good! There is a place for them as "Associate Members" in the Royal College. In our enlightened times we should look at a career pathway to get them through the MPharm for those with the aptitude to progress.
                    47 BC : Julius Cesar : Veni Vidi Vici : I came, I saw I conquered.
                    2018 AD : Modern Man : I shopped, I clicked, I collected.
                    How times change.

                    If you find you have read something that has upset or offended you an anyway please unread it at once.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Sciety or Royal College

                      Originally posted by kemzero View Post
                      Linnear (and fellow colleagues)
                      Techs should be allowed to join the prospective Royal College.They should not be left to support/fend for themselves as pharmacy should be one big famiy.Exclusion could lead to the creation of scavengers (warning:scavengers could damage your health) Jokes aside we need them and they need us, they are now a very important fabric of our everyday professional life;besides pharmacists need them to further evolve.
                      Yes techs are important, and yes we need them if we are to develop further. I think everyone agrees with that, though I'm not sure that's the key issue.

                      Originally posted by kemzero View Post
                      I am not advocating that they should be given full membership as this would make a mockery of the Royal College because it will in turn mean that the minimum entry requirement for membership to the proposed"elite "college is a NVQ level 3 qualification...this will make us /the college a laughing stock amongst our peers (GPs,Nurses,Dentists, Optometrists etc) The minimum entry requirement has to be a Degree.Techs should be offered associate membership,if they acquire a degree and pass an exam,let them in as full members "All animals are equal,but some are more equal than others" George Orwell ,Animal Farm- We are equal as professionals but not education and knowledge ;as NVQ level 3 probably equates to AS level or at the very best 2 A-levels at C grade.
                      Pharmacists should not oppose to techs joining the proposed college as most of them realise that NVQ level 3 does not by any means equate to MPharm.
                      I agree, techs should definitely not be given full membership. I'd be reasonably happy for techs to be allowed associate membership, so they could benefit from services such as the library. Techs should be offered associate membership if they are registered by the society (or whichever body replaces it as regulator).

                      Could you clarify your comment about techs being allowed in as full members if they acquire a degree and pass an exam? Do you mean they should be allowed as full members if they get an M.Pharm and pass pre-reg??

                      Finally, techs and pharmacists are not equal as professionals. Quite frankly I'm astounded that a pharmacist could make such a comment.

                      Originally posted by kemzero View Post
                      As for the issue of remote supervision, it will only be for a set period maximum 2 hours and the p'cist will still have overall responsibility (thats if it ever goes ahead!) Pharmacists will always need to ensure a prescription is pharmaceutically valid and suitable;removing a p'cist from the equation will be catastrophic for patient care which will no doubt be severely compromised.
                      The American army have realised this, they have practiced remote supervision for years, but now laws have been put in place to reverse this due to various incidents.

                      we need a Royal college that will be a beacon of knowlegde,education and development....a force to be reckoned with both at home and abroad;an institution that would be responsible for the advancement of all phamacy staff. Pharmacists and their support staff should champion excellent pharmaceutical care and the level of service provision should be standardised by this college.

                      Recently I did a locum and had to check of a repeat prescription for an 86yr old woman which called for Nitrazepam 10mg od and Glibenclamide 5mg tds, I refused to dispense it ;but the tech couldn't understand why as it had never been questioned before! We all need to be educated together ,CPD etc,high standards for every Pharmacy member;techs should be able to highlight errors like this ; agree a strategy with the pharmacist ,who will in turn advise the GP....we all need to work together....unity and togetherness will be pharmacys' strength!
                      Not sure a tech would know what was wrong with nitrazepam 10mg od and glibenclamide 5mg tds. Obviously some pharmacists don't either.

                      The Royal College is being set up to perform the representative functions carried out by the society at present (and hopefully will do it better). Techs have APTUK as their representative body - let them in to our RC as associate members only.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Sciety or Royal College

                        Hiya Steve G

                        Techs who have completed a science/pharmaceutical science degree, should be allowed to become members....that's my opinion;then there should be a general entrance exam, probably pitched at that level.
                        having a degree is far much better than plain old NVQs

                        I do believe techs and pharmacists are equal as professionals ( professionals don't need to have the same level of education) they are professionals in carry out technical duties under the supervision of a pharmacist.Wouldn't you consider dieticians,pilots,engineers,care workers,nurses,GPs, opticians,optometrists,carpet fitters etc as professionals.
                        Nowadays the word professional is used loosely and not linked to your level of education....professional footballers!
                        Kemzo the pharmacist forumly known as kemzero

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X