insightthe magazine of the pharmacists’ defence association

winter 2006/2007

inside thisissue…

RemoteSupervision

The PDA lobbies Houses ofParliament

3 Page specialBPC report

The PDA challenges theRPSGB over regulation

NPA insuranceconflict

Concerns over NPA providingPI insurance for individualpharmacists

6» »8 13

primar

y care

pharm

acist

editio

n

»

Join us at the 3rd Annual PDA ConferenceBirmingham ICC | February 25th, 2007

Chairman’s letterby Mark Koziol.

Making some sense out of the regulatory madnessIt is on public record that the PDA has been attacking what we consider to be over-regulation of pharmacists by the RPSGB with some vigour. We do this at nationalpharmacy meetings, in meetings with MPs and Lords, in the press and elsewhere.

Some have asked why are we doing this?, especially those who consider that theregulation of pharmacists is absolutely in the interests of the public. Let me explain.

We too believe that the regulation of pharmacists is important - every profession hasa small minority of poor practitioners whose actions one cannot defend. We alsoaccept that the old system is in need of modernisation. However, we believe thatwhat pharmacists are currently enduring at the hands of the RPSGB is like more anexercise of needless victimisation of generally hard working and conscientious prac-titioners trying to do right by their patients.

Consider this - just a few years ago there were no more than 33 cases heard by theInfringements Committee, but in 2005, this rose to a shocking 874 cases with morecases in the pipeline.

Pharmacy has never had its regulatory credentials called into question in the past,it has never swept cases of poor practice under the carpet. So why has there beensuch a dramatic increase in regulatory activity?

In my view, it is the new systems and processes introduced by the RPSGB thathave led to the current state of affairs. Processes that require the inspectors totransform all investigations into formal ones, resulting in formal consequences. Thisnew regime believes that even trivial technical errors that can cause no harm toanyone, should result in a formal professional disciplinary record being set upagainst the pharmacist in question. At one stage, the Society even considered thattraffic light offences were worthy of their attention. This is regulation gone mad, andif it continues it will irreperably damage the profession.

In the interests of the public and the profession, the RPSGB must re-introducesome sanity. We need good, modernised regulation, what we do not need andwhat the public does not require is for an ever-increasing proportion of our registerto have been involved in a disciplinary process simply because the qualifying bar isneedlessly low and because unnecessary zeal is being applied.

TAKING CHARGE…Our PDA Annual conference in February will deal with the problems ofovert pharmacist regulation and many other issues besides. In particular, wewant to show pharmacists that they have rights in the workplace and also indealings with their regulator – the RPSGB. I urge all PDA members to join us at the conference in Birmingham on Sunday 25th February 2007.

2 | INSIGHT

Mark Koziol, Chairman, The PDA

Inside this issue…

Don’t forget!You can download the Insight onlinewww.the-pda.org/publications/pub_insight1.html

3-5

News

Remote SupervisionThe PDA lobbies Parliament with its concerns

Employment TribunalsHow to bring an employment claim. 1st in a series

The Section 60 orderGordon Applebe discusses the new rules

All change in primary careChanges at PCTs unsettle primary care pharmacists

New staff appointmentsNew staff at the PDA.

PDA at BPC 2006A special 3 page report from the BPC.

6

7-9

10

11

14

15

The PDA Advisory Board…

Dr. Gordon Appelbe, LLB, PhD, MSc, FRPharmS

Elizabeth Doran, MRPharmS

John Farwell, FRPharmS

Richard Flynn, MRPharmS

Bob Gartside, FRPharmS

Dr Duncan Jenkins, MSc, PhD, MRPharmS

Diane Langleben, MRPharmS

Alan Nathan, FRPharmS

Shenaz Patel, MRPharmS

Mark Provost, MSc, MRPharmS

Graham Southall-Edwards,MA(law), LLM, B.Pharm, MRPharmS

Paul Taylor, LLB (hons)

Professor Joy Wingfield,LLM, Mphil, FCPP, FRPharmS

Virginia Wykes, MRPharmS

www.the-pda.org

| 3INSIGHT

We will be examining;• Pay scales project

Introducing a transparent pay-scale system for pharmacists

• Agenda for ChangeWhose agenda is this?

• Regulation gone mad…Introducing common sense into the regulation of pharmacists

• The ‘responsible pharmacist’ concept

How this new legal status provides enhanced authority toemployee and locum pharmacists

• Remote supervisionLimiting the impact of these risky proposals

• Employment clinic

And many more issues besides…

As is already well recognised, professionaldevelopments in pharmacy have for a long timebeen dominated by the interests of largeemployers, be they the NHS or large corporateorganisations.

Developing the core theme which has occupied the PDAsince its inception just three years ago, this conference willexplore practical issues in such a way that they will allowpharmacists to understand and therefore exert a much greaterinfluence over important matters which ultimately affect theirworking environments, roles and livelihoods.

The International Convention Centre is situated onBroad Street in the centre of Birmingham, which iswhy some of the World's high-profile companies andleading associations choose the ICC for their event. Ithas continually proved to be one of Europe's mostprestigious and professional venues.

Visit:http://www.theicc.co.uk/organisers/travelfor travel details

visit www.the-pda.org for more

ABOUTTHEICC

4 | INSIGHT

Whenever the government intends to changelaws or regulations in any way, it usually consultson its proposals before any changes are made.This principle also applies broadly to the RPSGBin so far as it consults with all relevant ‘stake-holders’. Such consultations are often anappropriate opportunity to influence the final out-come, particularly if they throw up issues thatmay not have been previously considered. Amajor strategic aim of the PDA is to ensure thatissues affecting the individual pharmacistagenda are properly articulated when theseopportunities arise.

Throughout recent months the PDA has beenactive in submitting views on numerous consul-tations (which can be found on our website). The

views expressed by the PDA in these instancesare ones that have been generated after holdingconferences, focus group meetings with mem-bers and/or surveys. The large amount of datagathered from reported patient safety issues andtheir resolution, gives the Association a uniqueperspective on how errors can be avoided andmanaged better after they occur.

Responses to consultations that have beenundertaken in recent months by the PDAinclude;• Governments Section 60 Order on pharma-

cist regulation.• RPSGB’s new Code of Ethics• RPSGB proposed Fitness to Practise rules.

• The Foster Report on Non-Medical Health-care regulation

• The Chief Medical Officers report on Health-care regulation.

newsnewsFind out what’s happening…

Pharmacist regulation blasted by Lib Dem MPLiberal Democrat MP and pharmacist Sandra

Gidley has criticised the Pharmaceutical Societyfor the way in which it regulates pharmacists.She has suggested that the Society must dropits bullying tactics when it investigates Fitness toPractise matters. In a recent article in theChemist and Druggist magazine she said “TheSociety has spent too much of its time dotting itsi’s and crossing its t’s, and not enough time rep-resenting pharmacists.” “This mentality is stiflinginnovation and positive action on behalf ofpatients.” “An example is where pharmacists arejust saying no when patients ask them for emer-gency supplies because that’s easier and itavoids slapped wrists.”

Sandra Gidley’s concerns are shared by thePDA and add weight to the Association’s ownposition on this issue. The PDA has consistentlypressed the Society on its Fitness to Practise

direction for almost three years. As a furthersymptom of the consequences of overt regula-tion, the PDA has seen many examples ofpharmacists choosing to leave the profession asa result of perceived over zealous treatment bythe Society in its investigations. Anxiety over theway Fitness to Practise investigations are under-taken has reached the highest levels of theSociety and RPSGB President Hemant Patelagreed that the Society must treat pharmacistswith greater compassion.

As part of the PDA’s ongoing parliamentaryactivity, Sandra Gidley is one of many membersof Parliament that PDA has lobbied on wide-rang-ing issues affecting the individual pharmacist.

Members who would like to contribute theircontribute:

Dual role split indicated by Foster ReportThe much-awaited Foster Report considered

whether the RPSGB could continue to performthe role of regulator and membership body simul-taneously. Here is one of the recommendations;

The entire Council of the RPSGB may beappointed by government.

Approximately 50% to be lay representa-tives and 50% to be pharmacists and

technicians

Effectively this means that pharmacists will bein a minority on the RPSGB Council and that

members will no longer be able to vote for theirCouncil. Additionally, this non- elected group willthen be able to decide what to do with members’

assets, accumulated over more than 160 yearssince the creation of the Society.

It is therefore increasingly likely that the cur-rent RPSGB Council will be pressed by themembership and take the decision to divest therole of regulation to the government. Such amove would enable the RPSGB to do what itwas set up to do in the first place – to representpharmacists.

As we go to press, it is understood that theRPSGB Council are holding several meetingsconvened specifically to decide its forthcoming

Shaping the future – PDA responds to consultations

Members who would like to contribute theirviews on these and any other consultationsthat emerge are invited to do so by calling0121 694 7000 or email us atenquiries@the-pda.org

The full PDA responses can be found on ourwebsite at:

contribute:

www.the-pda.org

Shaping the future – PDA responds to consultations

Sandra Gidley in parliament

Landmark case for Area Manager on the horizon

| 5INSIGHT

news

Does your employer require you to workmore than 48 hours a week and also to do sowithout overtime payment? - If it does, it maybe breaking the law and you may be able toclaim payment too!

The Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’)implies a maximum working time of 48 hoursinto every contract of employment, meaning that

employees cannot be required to work morethan 48 hours for their employer in any seven-day period (the working week) - this includes allrest breaks, unless they exercise their right toopt out of these limits. Not only that, butemployers are required by the Regulations “totake all reasonable steps, in keeping with theneed to protect the health and safety of workers,to ensure that the limit specified is “compliedwith”. The employer is also required to keepadditional special records detailing the hoursworked by employees who have opted out. Anyemployer that fails to do so may be commiting acriminal offence, in certian situations, for which itcan be prosecuted.

Many large companies go to considerable

lengths to ensure that their management employ-ees (whose hours can easily rise unnoticed dueto pressure of work) do not work more than 48hours a week. However, this appears not to betrue of at least one major phar-macy multiple, where ithas been allegedthat it required atleast one area

manager towork well inexcess of 48hours and with-out extra pay.

The Area Managerhas claimed that thismade him quite seriously illand has resigned from thecompany. He felt soaggrieved that he contactedthe PDA and has now broughta claim against his employersfor various payments.

The various payments included Saturday locumfees which he feels were incurred when he had tocover for his pharmacist managers in order to givethem a day off. In addition to this, there were thehours worked in excess of 48 hours on his normal

day job of area management.He argued that they were either impliedto be paid as overtime to his contract

of employment or due to be paid tohim under a separate contract.

At the time of writing, the (nowex) Area Manager involved hassuccessfully obtained a judge-ment against the company fordamages, which are to beassessed by the Court later this

year. The company, probablyrecognising that this could be a

landmark case, is seeking to get thejudgement set aside, arguing that it has

no liability to make the payments claimed.

In recent months, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Fitness to PractiseDirectorate has been embarrassed into issuing several letters of apology topharmacists who were wrongly implicated following flawed investigationsinto complaints.

In one particular case, in a submission made to the Infringements Com-mittee, the PDA articulated the pharmacist’s astonishment at the processhe was dragged into and the fact that he had even been implicated in ananonymous complaint made some three years earlier. Our member wascaught up only because he happened to be present at and co-operatedwith the belated investigation. He was not even employed at the pharmacyat the time the alleged unsubstantiated incident took place.

“Our member happened to be present in the pharmacy at the time theInspector came to investigate the complaint” said John Murphy, Director ofthe PDA. “Imagine how he must have felt after he co-operated with theInspector, made it clear that he could not have been there at the time andassumed that the matter was closed”

He then received a letter from the Fitness to Practise Directorate notifyinghim of his referral to the Infringements Committee. This letter invited him tocomment and recommended that he should take legal advice beforeresponding, because the matter could go before the Statutory Committee.The fact that this was a “standard” letter and the Directorate recommendedno further action was irrelevant, and could not excuse this approach. Whatthis pharmacist experienced was the full weight of the Society’s disciplinaryprocess, presumably in the misguided interests of transparency.

We are pleased that the Society agreed to our member’s demands for afull apology. It is reassuring to know that individual pharmacists are not theonly people who make mistakes!

The PDA believes that if their late action isunsuccessful this could lead to a flood ofsimilar claims from other Area Managers andemployees who are compelled to work over48 hours unpaid.

The PDA has more information about risk management and how itcan help you online.

Find out more about risk management at www.the-pda.org

find out more:

RPSGB apologises to PDAmembers…

Stat Comm Chairman -one error - a striking off offence?

Pharmacists may well be astounded to learn of a recent Statutory Com-mittee hearing in which the Chairman in his summing up suggested thatone dispensing error committed by a pharmacist was sufficient to renderhim unfit to be on the register. Although in this case, he simply repri-manded the pharmacist in question – his views have caused muchconsternation within the profession.

Few pharmacists can confidently claim that they have NEVER made asingle dispensing error: are we therefore to conclude then that the major-ity of pharmacists are not fit to be on the register?

This incredible finding poses more questions than it provides answers;• Has the Chairman of the Statutory Committee ever seen the inner

workings of a busy pharmacy?• Is he aware of the important risk management work being undertaken

by the National Patient Safety Agency which relies on data from dis-pensing and other errors to develop practice improvements? It ispossible that his view could damage the goodwill and participation ofpharmacists in this important work.

• How was it that this case could even have been referred to the Statu-tory Committee by the RPSGB in the first place?

Are working hours getting the better of you?…they shouldn’t be!

6 | INSIGHT

During meetings with MPs and Lords, it isapparent that they quickly realise what a badidea remote supervision actually is and how itrepresents an unnecessary risk to the public.As a consequence of much lobbying, parlia-mentarians have raised concerns in theHouses of Parliament. Enclosed are some oftheir contributions taken from verbatimHansard reports; House of Lords, March 1st, Baroness Murphy

‘‘It seems to me – and this has been raised bythe Pharmacists’ Defence Association too – thatthe provisions, if not properly implemented, mayhave the unintended consequence of lesseningthe public’s access to a community pharmacistin more deprived areas and provide fewer safe-guards for patients in terms of supervision fortheir medications.’’

I fear that companies with several pharmacieswill simply reduce the number of pharmaciststhey employ, in remote rural and inner City areaswhere there are recruitment problems leadingto the creation of a two tier system.”House of Lords, May 22nd, Baroness Barker:

“I am struggling to ascertain exactly whatexceptional circumstances would have to arisefor it to be acceptable for a responsible pharma-cist not to be on the premises. I am concernedthat a responsible pharmacist has a role to playnot only in the dispensing of prescriptions, butin community health. It is a role which we allsupport. I do not see how barcoding, robotics

and videolinks, as described by the minister,could help in that work.”

“The days on which pharmacists really earntheir money are those when they are working inthe back and happen to hear something goingon in the front. They wander out to join the con-versation, whereupon they pick up details suchas adverse reactions on repeats, and are evenable to detect certain conditions by a personsodour or pallour. Those details could not bepicked up by remote means, but they often leadto important medical interpretations.”House of Lords, May 22nd, Earl Howe

“It is not appropriate to allow a pharmacistsprofessional responsibility to be divided betweentwo or more sets of premises. We could envis-age a multiple retailer deciding that a singlepharmacist could take responsibility for the in-house pharmacies in a clutch of supermarkets.”House of Lords, June 26th, Earl Howe

“The use of technology should not beencouraged as a substitute for pharmacistsbeing physically present in a pharmacy becausetechnology, however good it is, merely intro-duces new challenges for patient safety.Pharmacists cited a case in California where4,700 people received incorrect medicationwhen a dispensing robot went wrong

If a pharmacist is absent from the pharmacy,to what extent is it safe for him to rely on supportstaff to follow the rules laid down in SOPs. ThePDA tells me that it regularly encounters inci-

dents of support staff acting outside their com-petencies and putting patient safety at risk. So increating flexibility for pharmacists to be absent,there is an inevitable trade-off in the form ofpotential risk to patient safety. None of us wantsto see that compromised.”Government responses from Lord Warner

“I repeat our commitment to work closely withthe RPSGB and others as we have been doing soalready, in developing these regulations.”

“It will be up to the responsible pharmacistto determine whether to allow remote supervi-sion of the activities in the pharmacy for whichhe is responsible, provided that the conditionswithin the regulations are met. The responsiblepharmacist would not be obliged to permitsupervision from another location.”

What next?The PDA was invited to discuss its concerns

with the Department of Health. More recently, thePDA was invited to present its concerns to anRPSGB Health Bill committee. At that meeting thePDA began to describe a possible way forward,basing its ideas on a premise that the only circum-stances under which a pharmacy should beallowed to operate in the absence of a pharmacistwas if the continued presence of the pharmacistwould prevent a pharmacist from dealing with acritical incident off the premises or if the pharma-cist was taking a mental and physical rest-break .Even under such circumstances, only a limitedrange of activities would be permitted.

The government has promised in Parlia-ment that it will not finalise the exactregulations until a full consultation is held withthe relevant parties in pharmacy and the PDAwill be included in that exercise. The full sub-mission of the PDA will be prepared inreadiness for this following more consultationwith members.

RemoteSupervisionaproposal compromising patient safety

One of the most substantial pieces of work undertaken by PDA in recent months has

been the lobbying of Parliament in relation to its concerns over remote supervision.

…the plan to operate a pharmacy in the absence of a pharmacist

| 7INSIGHT

The 2006 British Pharmaceutical Conferencetook place at the Manchester International Con-vention Centre from 4 to 6 September and hadthe theme “Personalised medicine in healthcare”.

Mark Pitt, PDA Membership Services Managersaid “It is important for us to be visible at thisevent. The PDA is now a significant force in phar-macy and this conference is a useful forum for theofficers of the association to meet the movers andshakers in pharmacy.” He went on to say “ Wehave a great opportunity in a forum such as this,to extend our influence both informally and in pub-lic sessions”.

Almost one hundred PDA members were allo-cated a complimentary one-day pass for theconference. This initiative was welcomed bymany PDA members, who may otherwise not beable to justify the cost of entry. This offer alsohelped create a better distribution of delegatesfrom the various sectors of pharmacy.

“We had over two hundred applications forthese passes and were sorry to disappoint somany of our members who were not successful,”said Mark, “We were taken aback by theresponse and will be seeking to repeat this initia-tive in the future.”

When not actually manning the stand, the PDA

team could be found at various sessions, puttingpertinent questions to the speakers and joining inlively debate. In particular, Mark Koziol, Chairmanof the PDA, was able to put speakers on the spotwith some searching questions.

Conference contentThere was plenty of choice to interest all

branches of the profession, from the purely sci-entific to looking at health care from theperspective of the patient. The PDA team wasparticularly interested in selecting those sessionsthat could impact on the organisation and itsmembers, with regulation and revalidation top ofits agenda.

The main session discussing the subject waschaired by Jim Smith, formerly Chief Pharmacistfor England, with two of the three speakers onthe platform from the Department of Health.Inevitably, regulation and revalidation was never

far from delegates’ minds and there was muchdiscussion of the topic elsewhere at conference;for example the Chief Pharmacists of the homecountries were bombarded with questions ontheir views as to whether the Society should splitor not during a panel discussion.

The address by Karen Hassell, the first confer-

ence practice chairman, would be of special inter-est to employee pharmacists. Her topic wasrecent research into job satisfaction. Worryingly,research suggests that pharmacists are muchless satisfied with their work than are the work-force in general. It is of particular concern that thelevels of job satisfaction are lowest in the two sec-tors that are the biggest employers ofpharmacists: community and hospital. Many fac-tors contribute to the situation, and these mustnot be ignored. { }It is important for us to be visible at this event

…the PDA is now a significant force in pharmacy

There was active participation by

PDA at the recent BPC conference

For the fourth time since its inauguration in 2003, the PDA had a presence at the

British Pharmaceutical Conference in September. The Association also occupied a

stand in the main area of the exhibition.

PDA ATBPC2006

More detailed coverage of the topics men-tioned above can be found overleaf. Don’tforget you can download the previous issuesof Insight at

find out more:

www.the-pda.org

8 | INSIGHT

…Chaired by Jim Smith, ex-Chief Pharmacistof England. Her remit was to discuss what theSection 60 Order would mean for pharmacistsand technicians. “At present, there is an all ornothing situation, reprimand or remand,” shesaid. She also thinks there must be a widerrange of sanctions and that the Society shouldtake a more sensitive approach to thosebrought before it because of poor perform-ance brought on by health impairment.

Talking specifically about new Fitness to Prac-tise requirements, Paul Atkinson a principal in theregulatory branch of the Department of Healthand closely involved in drafting the Section 60regulations set out his views. Central to his mes-sage was the idea that both Fitness to Practiseinvestigations and also re-validation of pharma-cists could be done locally. This will probablyinvolve PCTs far more than before. He also sug-gested that employers existing processes couldbe used to support some of this work, as thiswould prevent duplication of effort.

Employer involvement ininvestigations – a non-starter?

One of the major concerns held by the PDA isthat the government has suggested that employ-ers could be involved in both a local Fitness toPractise investigation and in revalidating pharma-cists periodically. However as PDA ChairmanMark Koziol explained to the panel, on manyoccasions an employer could in some way beinvolved or implicated in a Fitness to Practiseissue, e.g., a flawed PCT policy which causesharm to patients. This would make the employera co-defendant in any proceedings that followed– with this in mind, a proposal that would effec-tively make the employer both the co-defendantand the investigator would be fraught with dan-ger.

The suggestion to allow an employer to beinvolved in the periodic revalidation of pharma-cists i.e., to decide whether the employee is

suitable to stay on the register of chemists was illconceived. Mark Koziol described how someemployers bully and mistreat their pharmacistemployees, particularly when the employeeshave resisted policies laid down by employersthat they consider to be lacking in safety. Theconsequence of such a suggestion, not onlymeans that pharmacists in such situations couldbe forced out of their jobs (as occasionally hap-pens at the moment), but that they could alsolose their professional registration - the wholeidea is a non starter.

Astonishingly, Paul Atkinson explained that theoriginal idea had been to simply allow the RPSGBto take the findings of employers on trust; how-ever, he publicly conceded that these conflicts ofinterest were not ones that the government hadpreviously considered and they would now haveto address these.

The Section 60 Order will not stopanother Shipman disaster.

Gul Root, Department of Health, discussed theregulation of controlled drugs, post Shipman.She discussed the concept of accountable offi-cers. The regulations will specify who can be so.Accountable officers in a primary care trust will

take responsibility for setting up networks, moni-toring and inspection of and guidance on thenew government arrangements, and the safe andsecure management and use of controlled drugs.

PDA Advisory Board member Gordon Appelbeexpressed his concerns over the fact that theSection 60 Order was a draconian proposal,which blatantly rode rough shod over HumanRights legislation. He explained that he wasaware that much of the thinking behind the Orderhad been motivated by a desire to preventanother Harold Shipman catastrophe. The ironywas however, that none of these changes wouldever stop another determined Shipman type indi-vidual and as a consequence the changesplaced unnecessary burdens on pharmacistsand healthcare professions generally.

The Section 60 Order will not beable to regulate companies

Returning to the employer situation, MarkKoziol explained that environmental issues causemany errors and mistakes in pharmacy. Exam-ples include poor staffing levels, excessiveworkloads and poor equipment. These wereissues which are generally in the control ofemployers, and yet the Section 60 Order wassilent on the employer issue.

The result is that the Section 60 Order wouldnever be able to deal with the root causes ofmany of the problems, merely the symptoms.

Paul Atkinson conceded that the Section 60Order had been designed with individuals in mindand because of that, it would not be possible tosimply amend it. However, he did suggest that indue course additional legislation could be con-sidered which could deal with this discrepancy.

In private discussions with DOH officials, thePDA has learned that in total, eight changeshad been made to the Section 60 Draft as a

result of the views received during the statutoryconsultation. A full version of the PDA Sec-

tion 60 consultation submission can befound on www.the-pda.org

Inadequacy of employers’insurance?

It has long been the position of PDA that phar-

Christine Gray, head of corporate governance at the Society,

was speaking at a session on regulation and revalidation and

what it meant for the future of pharmacists

Mark Koziol“employer involvement a non-starter”

THE PDA CHALLENGESRPSGB OVERREGULATION

| 9INSIGHT

macists should carry their own cover in the eventthat they find themselves in a conflict with theiremployers…

The Association was surprised to hear MsGray, telling delegates that an employer’s insur-ance policy may be sufficient for someemployees. Her statement underpins the PDA’sbelief that many people have misconceptionsabout personal indemnity and legal defenceinsurance and the view that individuals shouldrely upon their employer’s insurance for theirdefence. The PDA believes that such a viewexpressed by a senior member of staff of the pro-fessional body is misguided, is damaging to thepharmacists best interests and questions theSociety’s credibility in pronouncing on suchissues. In the PDA’s experience, the environmentis becoming more hostile toward individual phar-macists and relying on their employer at a timewhen they are potentially in conflict with them willnot be to their advantage.

The PDA continues to argue that Pharmacistsshould avoid reliance on their employer’s insurance,or any insurance policy provided by an employerrepresentative organisation - like the NPA.

Let’s get personalKaren Hassell posed the question ‘why is it

important to know how satisfied pharmacists arewith their jobs?’ Dr Hassell was giving the firstpractice chair lecture, “Let’s get personal: dopharmacists like their work?”

It is important to ask the question because thereis a well-known association between job satisfac-tion and mental health, including stress, anxietyand depression. In addition, when workers are nothappy, productivity goes down, absenteeism risesas does staff turnover. “There can be an exit fromthe job, and even the profession,” she said.

Dr Hassell came to the podium armed with theresults of various studies looking at job satisfac-tion within pharmacy. There is plenty of evidenceshowing that in community pharmacy, if the phar-macist is young, male and from an ethnicminority he has less job satisfaction. This isbecause of the daily demands of the job, the pro-fessional role, counter-prescribing and timepressures. Reasons for leaving the professionincluded, long hours with no break, the workload,

isolation from their peers and other health-careprofessionals, and not using their skills to the full.

Has the time come to split the dualrole of the Society?

When the four UK Chief Pharmacists at theDepartment of Health initiate a debate about theSociety’s future as both a regulator and a repre-sentative body – the leaders of the professiontend to listen carefully. It was therefore no sur-prise that the majority of the RPSGB electedcouncil officers and senior staff attended, whatturned out to be one of the most controversialand lively sessions at this years BPC.

Bill Scott, Chief Pharmacist for Scotland saidthat the public trust had been affected by disas-ters such as Shipman and others and there wasnow a growing feeling that regulation must bedone by experts. He argued that the role of a reg-ulator was to define professional boundaries andto police them, whilst it was the role of a leader-ship body to constantly push and expand thoseboundaries. He suggested that two possiblemodels could exist; one was the current model,where the Society was both the regulator and theprofessional leadership body. The other modelwas where these two functions were split and twoseparate bodies, one a regulator and the other amembership/professional leadership body under-took these roles.

Strongly hinting that it would be the two dis-tinct bodies that would produce the idealframework for both public protection and devel-opment of the practice of pharmacy, he said,“This is key as to whether we grow and succeedor whether as a profession we are stifled.” Keith

Ridge, Chief Pharmacist for England went on tosuggest that there were already a number of bod-ies that provided good professional leadershipfor pharmacists and that the [professional leader-ship style] Society could work collaboratively in acollegiate style structure to provide a strong lead-ership body. He added “A lengthy debate on theSociety’s role as a regulator and professionalleader would frustrate pharmacists’ futureprospects. We are at the crux of great change andopportunity. We don’t need a five-year debate. Ifyou want this [splitting of the two roles], it can bedone fast.”

PDA Chairman Mark Koziol agreed and indi-cated that for a long time he had believed thatone single joined up body was better for every-one, however due to the substantial increasedlevel of Society disciplinary scrutiny being experi-enced by pharmacists (874 referrals to theInfringements Committee in 2005 alone) he feltthat the Society as currently structured had dam-aged its professional leadership credentials in theeyes of the members. He had now changed hismind due to the path the Society seemed to befollowing. He added that as each day went bythe rising number of cases prosecuted by theSociety meant that pharmacists were walking infear of the Society. He felt that any delays in split-ting the roles would make it an uphill struggle toregain the Society’s appeal to members. Thiscould make voluntary membership of the RPSGBin the future doomed to failure.

Pharmacist, Dr Angela Alexander questionedhow it could be that those working at Lambethcould ever support such a split between regula-tion and membership, since many of their jobsrelied on continuing the status quo. The Secretaryand Registrar along with other members of staffexpressed concerns during the debate, at whatthe four chief pharmacists appeared to be pro-posing. Alan Kershaw, a lay member of Councilindicated that whilst creative tensions within a sin-gle body were one thing; confrontation betweentwo separate bodies with separate aims wasquite another.

In response, Bill Scott suggested that hehoped that the profession was sufficientlymature to be able to undertake the changeswithout a bloodbath.

…the pda at bpc 2006 continued

PDA ATBPC2006

11,000 PHARMACISTS HAVE ALREADY JOINED THE PDAwww.the-pda.org 0121 694 7000

Bill Scott “regulation to be done by experts”

S

10 | INSIGHT

This article focuses on where and how to bringan employment claim, the types of claims thatcan be made and procedures to be followedthrough to the stage of receiving a judgment.

Of the defence cases that the PDA handles,around 60% are employment related. Making ordefending a claim in the Employment Tribunals

is not intended to be an easy route to resolvingan employment related dispute and the view ofthe Employment Tribunals is that it is not abouthaving your day in court. On the contrary,Employment Tribunals should be the last resorthaving exhausted internal grievance and appealsprocesses. While the PDA is committed to provid-ing full legal assistance where possible, we haveto bear this is mind when considering whether tohave the case heard or whether the disputeshould be settled prior to lodging proceedings orindeed before the hearing takes place.

Thought is given to the possible professionalimplications particularly when a member isdefending a claim and it is important to considerthe impact of court proceedings for the individualinvolved. While some cases can take a fewmonths to be resolved, others may last for a yearand it can be an emotional and stressful experi-ence for members and their families. Details ofTribunal proceedings may be released into thepublic domain and if a member’s case is dis-missed and it is determined that it was more thanlikely to be unsuccessful, an award of costs canbe made against the member.

Member’s cases are therefore thoroughlyand thoughtfully assessed and after properconsideration, advice is given as to whethertheir claim or defence has a reasonableprospect of success. It may well may be thatwe decide that an out of court settlement

should be accepted and in our experience, set-tling claims by way of compromise agreementshas resulted in the dispute being resolved tothe satisfaction of our members. In the last twoyears almost £200,000 has been awarded toPDA members by employers in this way.

What are they and what do they do?Employment Tribunals are judicial bodies

established to resolve disputes between employ-ees and employers over employment rights.

What type of claims do theydetermine?

Examples of claims one can bring include butare not limited to claims for unfair dismissal,redundancy payments, discrimination on thegrounds of sex /race /sexual orientation /disabil-ity/ religion or belief/ and now age, breach ofcontract, unpaid wages, unpaid holiday pay anda failure of an employer to provide a written state-ment of the particulars of employment.

How do you make a claim?A claimant (the person making the claim) must

make a claim in writing on a form (ET1) providedby the Employment Tribunals and must adhereto the relevant time limits for making a claim. Forexample in the case of an individual allegingunfair dismissal, the individual must lodge theirclaim within 3 months from the date of termina-tion of employment. When a response is receivedfrom the respondent it is sent to the claimant.

HearingsThere are generally 4 types of hearings that

can take place:1. A Chairman can direct that a Case Man-

agement Discussion takes place. Essentially,this means that both parties are invited to attendthe tribunal to identify the issues and makearrangements for the future conduct of the case.

2. A Pre-Hearing Review is essentially aninterim hearing to determine any preliminary mat-ters relating to the proceedings. Pre-HearingReview issues include but are not limited todetermining whether or not an individual is anemployee, has the required length of service tobring a claim, or to decide whether or not theclaim or part of it should be struck out on thebasis that it is vexatious or has no reasonableprospect of success.

3. A Full Hearing is generally used to disposeof the claim by hearing evidence. On the day ofthe hearing parties will attend the EmploymentTribunals and argue their case before the panel.Witnesses, including the claimant will give evi-dence as to their version of events and may becross examined by the other side or asked ques-tions by the panel. This can be an unpleasantexperience as the other side will focus on theweaknesses of the claim or defence and areeffectively seeking to discredit the other sides wit-ness evidence. Both parties are given theopportunity to summarise their case and thepanel then make a decision based on the evi-dence they have heard. The decision is sent tothe parties and will either state that the claimanthas been successful or unsuccessful in whichcase the claim is dismissed.

4. A Review or Appeal Hearing can takeplace when parties avail of the opportunity to askfor a review of a decision or appeal to theEmployment Appeals Tribunal, which is thehigher court.

Employmenttribunals

Further articles will explore the types ofclaims and the likely awards in greater detail

find out more:

www.the-pda.org

{ }In the last two years almost £200,000 has been awarded to PDA members

…the first in a series of articles discussing employment related matters.

1. How and where to bring a claim…

by Orla Sheils PDA Paralegal

Gordon Applebe expresses his concerns, about the grim prospects for

pharmacists under new RPSGB regulatory rules.

by Dr Gordon Applebe LLB, PhD, FRPharmS. PDA ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER

| 11INSIGHT

The s.60 Order will no doubt be altered and Iunderstand that a number of changes havealready had to be made to it following its consul-tation. No doubt further thought will be given to itas a result of the Foster Review on the Regula-tion of the Non-Medical Healthcare Professions.The Society is rushing headlong into thesechanges. Surely it would be sensible to givemore time for all concerned to understand themajor changes that are about to take place.There is further concern that the Society hasbeen, and is already, implementing some ofthese rules at this time as if it had the power todo so - which as yet it has not.

A nightmare for pharmacists…The bundle of documents which accompa-

nied the draft rules consultation were useful, butwithout ploughing through the 141 pages of theRules themselves one is not aware of what allthe changes will bring. This is a nightmare forthe average pharmacist who basically does notknow what is going on and may not understandthe legal phraseology. Many pharmacists towhom I have spoken do not appreciate thecomplexity and the potential outcome.

The Rules deal with several aspects of theSociety’s work a few are listed in this shortarticle

• The registrant has to pay his fees by 1st Jan-

uary and if he fails to pay by that time his namewill be automatically removed from the Registerirrespective of the circumstances.

•The registrant must declare any criminal con-victions or police cautions to the Society. It isinteresting to note that the Society has been exer-cising this provision for two years although as yetit has no power to do so as the s.60 order hasnot been implemented

•Disciplinary powers and Fitness to Practiserules run to 55 pages.

•Excessive power is given to the Registrar toinitially decide what actions should be takenagainst registrants with no real initial screeningprocess.

•Following any erasure there can be norestoration for five years. This imposes stress anddifficulty in obtaining up to date training in orderto be satisfactorily restored - if ever. No thought ofrehabilitation.

•The Society is giving itself powers to informemployers of any allegation against a pharma-cist even before it is substantiated and powersfor the Registrar to force a pharmacist to undergoa medical examination or an assessment of pro-fessional performance.

No escapeWatch out too, if you want to voluntarily retire

from the register. The Registrar, if he feels thatthe applicant has made a false statement as to

his fitness to practise, may refuse to accept sucha retirement. In some circumstances, the registrarmay even restore a name which has alreadybeen removed voluntarily so that it can be erasedunder the disciplinary proceedings instead. …what a nonsense and a waste of timeand money.

The Section 60 Order- the RPSGB rules

I consider these rules are draconian, denyingrights, including some Human Rights, punish-ing wrongdoing, obstructing any form ofrehabilitation and restoration. Most pharmacistscould now easily fall foul of these rules. Theserules are enforcing a punishment form of regu-latory control and driving a further wedgebetween the regulatory role of the Society andits membership. The Society needs to remem-ber that it started as a professionalmembership body and still is the Royal Phar-maceutical Society of Great Britain. Until now ithad a excellent record in balancing the tworoles. That will cease if the s.60 Order andthese Rules become reality and the sooner theSociety divests itself of its regulatory role andreturns to being solely a professional body forpharmacy the better.

I am very concerned that the consultation on the draft rules of theSociety have been rushed through at an indecent pace when thesubstantive Section 60 order made under the Health Act 1999 hasnot yet been implemented following its consultation period.

basic rights denied…{ }In some circumstances, the registrar may even restore aname which has already been removed voluntarily so that itcan be erased under the disciplinary proceedings instead.

…What a nonsense and a waste of time and money.

Even minor trafiic offences may be

considered in your registration

12 | INSIGHT

Unfortunately the chances of winning the jack-pot are very slim compared with the risk ofencountering a professional or employmentissue.

In 2005, the RPSGB received 874 complaintsabout the conduct of its members. In addition tothose complaints, the Society is routinely notifiedof details of any criminal convictions received byits members. Information from the 2005 Registerof Pharmaceutical Chemists indicates that on 5thAugust 2005 there were 46,396 pharmacists reg-istered. Just over 40,000 of those pharmacistswere on the practising register.

Using this information it is possible to estimatethat pharmacists face approximately a 1 in 46chance of a professional complaint being madeagainst them.

This shocking statistic is only one part of theequation. Over 50% of the incidents notified tothe PDA are employment related, with 500employment or contractual issues being dealtwith by our office in the first half of 2005 alone.Many of the issues brought to our attentiondemonstrate just how vulnerable pharmacists areto these types of problems.

There are common themes to many of the pro-fessional incidents reported to the PDA and thisarticle looks at some examples of what can gowrong with error reporting and how pharmacistscan avoid common pitfalls.

Error investigationThe PDA regularly receive calls from pharma-

cists who have been contacted by the localRPSGB inspector about an error they are com-pletely unaware of. Occasionally this is becausethe patient has complained directly to the Societyrather than to the pharmacy itself or their headoffice. More often than not, it is because thepharmacy has neglected to notify the pharmacistresponsible, that an error has occurred whilstthey were on duty. The patient can be aggrievedif the pharmacy staff or company does not dealwith their complaint properly and therefore feel aformal complaint to the RPSGB is the only way toresolve the matter.

Locum pharmacists who may no longer beworking at the pharmacy when the error comesto light are more vulnerable to this problem.However employees who move between phar-macies have also reported similar issues.Evidence gathered from many PDA reportedcases, suggests that early intervention by theresponsible pharmacist can often reduce the riskof a complaint being escalated through more for-mal channels such as the PCT or the RPSGB. Itis not uncommon for patients to say when inter-viewed, that the only reason they chose to reportwas because their complaint was not being dealtwith properly or taken seriously.

The pharmacist responsible for an error is ableto give a valuable first hand input into the phar-macy’s own investigation of the incident andprovide a more balanced view of the environmen-tal or staffing issues that may have contributed.Incorporating the views of the responsible phar-

macist allows a better quality of error analysisand should lead to a more robust action plan toprevent a reoccurrence. This contribution is lost ifthe pharmacist is unaware there has been aproblem. It also means the pharmacist is notprompted to review their own practice to avoid arepetition of the error.

Of more concern is the destruction of evidencerelating to an error by pharmacy employees,when an error has occurred. The identificationof the responsible pharmacist is critical to investi-gating any professional complaint and this isseverely hampered by poor complaint handlingprotocols where the label and audit trail evidenceis routinely discarded. The PDA are aware of onemajor pharmacy chain were important evidencerelating to a complaint, belatedly notified to apharmacist has been destroyed. This meant theresponsible pharmacist could not be conclusivelyidentified out of several possible individuals whena compensation claim was made.

The PDA member involved in the incidentdescribed above was very distressed to receive aletter from the insurers of this pharmacy chain,which identified her as the responsible pharma-cist for an error. This was the first time she wasaware of any error being made and naturallywished to investigate what happened, in order toidentify any changes that may be necessary inher own practice. Attempts to view the returnedmedicine in order to identify any signature on thelabels were thwarted by the pharmacy manager,who had thrown away the medicine containers.

It could be you…by Mark Pitt MRPharmS. PDA Membership Services Manager

We’d prefer that our members won the lottery, rather than have the finger

of a professional or disciplinary investigation pointed at them…

Notification of error.In the light of several cases being brought

before the Royal Pharmaceutical Society'sInfringements Committee, pharmacists arereminded that where an error occurs and thesubsequent completion of an error log is madeby someone other than the person who madethe mistake, it is essential that the pharmacist

responsible for the error is notified. (Maintaining an error log is a good practice

requirement and should be included in pharma-cies’ standard operating procedures.)

This is important so that the pharmacistresponsible can take necessary corrective stepsto prevent a reoccurrence of the error and canexamine his or her current working practices or

personal standard operating procedures to iden-tify areas that may require attention and needstrengthening. Notification to the pharmacistresponsible will also highlight training require-ments which should then be duly addressed andwill provide the opportunity for professionaldevelopment. This requirement applies equallyto employee and locum pharmacists.

RPSGB Law & Ethics Bulletin:

| 13INSIGHT

…This advice however, does not mentionthat the NPA is an organisation whose primaryrole is to look after the interests of NPA mem-bers i.e. the owners of pharmacies – not theindividual pharmacists or locums who work fortheir members.

The NPA’s constitution has always stated that;“Where a conflict emerges between an

employee (or locum) and the NPA member,the Associations allegiance will always lie withthe NPA member – the owner of the phar-macy.”

Consequently, any indi-vidual who takes outinsurance with the NPAruns the risk of having thehandling of their claimaffected by the NPA’s pri-mary constitutionalconcern – which is to lookafter the interests of theirmember and not that ofhis employee or locum.

The PDA has receiveda complaint from a phar-macist who did take outthe NPA’s insurance, onlyto be told when he cameto have a dispute with alarge multiple employer,that the NPA could nothelp him because thisemployer was one of their largest fee payingmembers. In the end, the NPA did apologise forthis suggesting that a mistake had been made –this pharmacist is now a Full PDA member.

The PDA believes that what the NPA should notbe doing is attempting to provide independent PIinsurance to individual pharmacists or othersbecause it could place it in a serious conflict situ-ation in the event that something goes wrong inthe pharmacy.

Moreover, pharmacists who do take up theNPA offer should understand that if things gettough, they may end up relying on an insurance

policy that is controlled by their employers repre-sentative organisation.

If anyone is in any doubt that the NPA willenforce its members (the employers) rights stren-uously, they should study the enclosed letter. Thiswas sent to a Pre-reg who had had a legal dis-pute with her employer. At the conclusion of thecase the NPA’s lawyers threatened the Pre-regwith legal action if she did not pay the NPA a sumof £3000.

These are undoubtedly the actions of anorganisation that is clearly looking after the inter-ests of its members; the employers – and theNPA performs that role very well.

The PDA believes that anyone who pro-vides PI insurance for individual pharmacistsmust think, breathe and act in such away as to ALWAYS put the interests ofthe pharmacist AHEAD of that of theemployer.

The manager had decided that our member wasresponsible for the mistake, but for some unex-plained reason chose not to notify her. Followingintervention by the PDA, evidence was uncoveredthat demonstrated our member was not in factresponsible for the error and therefore not liablefor the claim. This was very welcome news forthe pharmacist concerned, who was worried thata RPSGB investigation would be held into thematter.

The PDA has been actively lobbying the Fit-ness to Practise Directorate highlighting commonproblems encountered by our members wheninvolved in professional disciplinary investiga-tions. It is pleasing to note that these concernshave been recognised in a recent Law and EthicsBulletin. See box: “RPSGB Law & Ethics Bulletin”

Future editions of Insight will highlight otherareas where pharmacists are at greater risk ofbeing involved in a complaint or error.

Beware of insuringwith the NPA…unless you are a pharmacy owner!

take note:Pharmacists should also take note of the fol-lowing points, to keep to a minimum thechances of a complaint escalating or beingwrongly implicated in an error.

3 Place a clear identifiable mark or signatureon every label every time you check or dis-pense a medicine.

3 Locums should provide a contact numberfor any queries that may arise after theyhave left the pharmacy.

3 When notified about an error for which youare being held responsible, it is importantto investigate the circumstances and usethis information to review personal proto-cols or procedures. Any deficiencies instaffing levels, pharmacy standard operat-ing procedures or environment factors,which may have contributed to the mistakebeing made, should be notified to the phar-macy.

3 Try to view any audit trail evidence available,such as the returned medicines in order todetermine if the mark or signature on thelabel is yours, before accepting responsibil-ity for an error.

3 When labels are produced, days in advanceof dispensing the medicine, problems canarise in identifying the responsible pharma-cist if an error occurs. This is particularlyso if a pharmacist cannot be confident thatthey always sign every label on each itemthey check or dispense.

3 Wherever possible take an active part inresolving the error and be confident that thematter is being handled to the satisfactionof the patient. Check any follow up actionsagreed, such as sending a letter to thepatient, has been completed.

www.the-pda.org

In a recent advertising campaign, the NPA claims that it hasalways given “stacks of expert advice” and that it is nowadvising that pharmacists and others should take out the

NPA’s professional indemnity insurance.

Pharmacists are urgedto think carefully before they takeout their individual protection.

The NPA defends the interests of its members - pharmacy owners

14| INSIGHT

Pharmacists in both primary and secondarycare will be feeling the pressure to make sav-ings or face redundancies. However thepressure is piled on further with yet anotherrestructuring. And the bad news is there’smore uncertainty ahead. For those of us work-ing in PCTs, many are faced with mergers andthe madness that this involves. Chairs andchief executives of the new organisations havebeen appointed, though many director postsare yet to be announced.

Many pharmacists working in PCTs will not yetknow who they will be reporting to or even whichdirectorate they will be working in. Worse still,

many will be competing with their peers (andfriends) for positions in the new PCT. It is saidthat it takes 2-3 years for new organisations to‘bed-in’. (Some would argue that PCTs havenever really bedded-in!). However, the directionof travel for the NHS promises more uncertaintyduring this bedding-in time. Practice Based Com-missioning (PBC), is placing GPs and (accordingto some) other health professionals in the drivingseat with respect to commissioning secondarycare and redesigning services. The level ofengagement is likely to vary considerably, thoughsome PBC clusters will be out to take over theworld. This may include aspirations to manageor even directly employ practice pharmacists orpharmaceutical advisers.

While there is still some debate amongst sen-ior pharmacists over the relative merits of thismodel versus the status quo, there are someimportant questions - Will GPs want to down-scale pharmaceutical teams? Will there be a

purely financial focus or will clinical services con-tinue to develop? Will pharmacists’ professionalsupervision and personal development suffer?The answers to the questions will undoubtedlydepend on the views of PBC lead GPs and theculture in these developing organisations.

A further uncertainty in primary care exists fol-lowing the announcements in 2005 that PCTsshould concentrate on commissioning andshould relinquish the provider role. The mainthrusts of this policy direction are to improvecommissioning effectiveness (without the distrac-tion of service provision) and to eliminate anyconflicts of interest (should an organisation be

both awarding service contracts and competingfor them?). The Department of Health softenedthe message somewhat following protests fromat least one professional body, though the expec-tation is that PCTs will still be under pressure tooff-load at least some service provision in thenext few years.

More questions!Do primary care pharmacists provide a clini-

cal service in the same mould as, say, districtnursing or podiatry? If PCTs aren’t employing pri-mary care pharmacists, who will be? Will therebe competition from commercial bodies such ascommunity pharmacy chains or other commer-cial providers of nurse or pharmacist teams?Again, no standard answers. In some PCTs, theprescribing team will be seen as providing moreof a governance or audit function than a clinicalservice. A number of models will evolve (andindeed exist now) in terms of service providers

and employers and, in some areas, commercialorganisations will carve a niche.

The FutureSo, is the future so gloomy? Not at all! Phar-

macy services in primary care have developedsignificantly over the last 10 years. Practice phar-macists have an established and well-respectedrole and experience suggests that GPs will bereluctant to give up this support and buck thetrend. Furthermore, the evidence suggests phar-macists save cash. This is highly pertinent nowthat PBC is focusing GPs on prescribing costsonce more. Also we have recently seen somesignificant steps forward for the profession. Thepublication of the Framework for Pharmacistswith a Special Interest is an excellent platform forboth community and primary care pharmacistsalike. And for once we have beaten the nurses toit! So the message is - don’t panic.

Primary care pharmacy will continue toflourish. However, I would advise you to gothrough any changes in working conditionswith your eyes open.

The NHS financial reforms and the resultant pressures (big deficits!) have been

described as “constructive discomfort”.

All change inprimary care

…and more on the way!

{ }

by Duncan Jenkins Pharmaceutical Public Health Specialist & MD of MORPh Consultancy. PDA ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER

Will GPs want to downscale pharmaceutical teams? Willthere be a purely financial focus or will clinical services

continue to develop? Will pharmacists’ professionalsupervision and personal development suffer?

what should you do?Here are a few pointers:3 Find out the views and aspirations of local

PBC groups3 If your line management might be chang-

ing ensure that your needs are voiced withrespect to supervision, peer support andCPD

3 If you are an NHS employee, speak toyour line manager or HR department if youhave concerns

3 If you do not get a satisfactory response oryou require independent advice, speak tothe PDA

www.the-pda.org

Karen, a solicitor, was previously with the Citi-zens Advice Service where she specialised in

providing advice and representation toclaimants and respondents in employment dis-putes and national training seminars in relation

to employment legislation for other CAS

”“

Staffappointments| 15INSIGHT

Karen Weekes

Among other skills, the appointeeshave extensive experience in

advising individuals, assessing andsupporting claims and defending

respondents in employment tribunals.

We believe that we offer an unrivalled legalservice to our members. The current cost of

an individual’s annual membership would buyless than one hour of a high street solicitor’stime and we want to improve our membersaccess to this important cornerstone of our

offer.

John Murphy, Director of PDA.

The PDA has been indemnifying Supplementary Prescribers since theirinception almost two years ago. At the time a statement was made to theeffect of ‘The Primary Care Consultants Policy will afford you full protectionduring your training and as a practitioner until the risk assessment is completeand a new policy and premium is in place.’

This arrangement is still in place for Supplementary Prescribers and theAssociation has also been able to secure a similar temporary arrangementfor Independent Prescribers, whilst they are undergoing training, MarkKoziol, PDA Chairman announced in October 2006.

“We wanted to reassure members, so that they could continue their trainingand development with peace of mind. We have come to an arrangement thatour Primary Care Policy will cover their risk whilst training to be an Indepen-dent Prescriber” said Mark. “We are planning to have a new policy in placefrom January 2007 that will reflect the changing roles in Pharmacy and theincreasing risks, Independent Prescribing being just one of them.”

In the meantime, members who are about to, or are undergoingtraining as an Independent Prescriber and wish to secure cover shouldcontact the PDA either through the website address below or by call-ing us on 0121 694 700.

‘Independent Prescriber’plans announced.

Orla joins Karen as the PDA Paralegal. Bothlegal experts have been brought into the in-

house team to strengthen the legal service weoffer to our members, particularly in the field of

employment and locum contract disputes.

”“

Orla Sheils

I am delighted to have joined such a forwardthinking organisation as the PDA. To date, I

have enjoyed the variety of work and contactwith our members. I am committed to ensur-ing the PDA not only meets the expectations

of its members' in defending the rights of indi-vidual pharmacists, but exceeds them.

Orla Shiels, PDA Paralegal.

Maleeha, a pharmacist, is now the PDATeacher Practitioner. In line with its strategic

objectives, the Association is raising the aware-ness of the risk management agenda as widelyas possible, including at undergraduate level.

”“

Maleeha Bari

Maleeha will also be responsible forsupporting the PDA’s extensive risk-

management educationalprogramme.

We know from speaking to a number ofacademics, Heads of School amongst them,that they would welcome help and support inour area of expertise. We have at our disposal

many interesting relevant case studies andexperiences, which provide excellent learning

opportunities.

Maleeha Bari, Teacher Practioner.

Could you be getting more from your Professional Indemnity insurer?

Much more than PI insurance:●Demand compensation from your employer if you are treated harshly at work

● Take your side if your error may have been caused by actions of your employer

●Organise conferences and provide bi-monthly risk management information

●Support locums in situations where employers refuse to pay fees promptly

We guarantee that no other Pharmacist’s PI provider delivers benefits to hospital pharmacists and locums as comprehensive as those provided by the PDA.

The Pharmacists’ Defence Association is an appointed representative of the Pharmacy Insurance Agency, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority

Perhaps that’s why more than 11,000 members have already joined!

Could you be getting more from your Professional Indemnity insurer?

Much more than PI insurance:●Demand compensation from your employer if you are treated harshly at work

● Take your side if your error may have been caused by actions of your employer

●Organise conferences and provide bi-monthly risk management information

●Support locums in situations where employers refuse to pay fees promptly

We guarantee that no other Pharmacist’s PI provider delivers benefits to primary care pharmacists and locums as comprehensive as those provided by the PDA.

The Pharmacists’ Defence Association is an appointed representative of the Pharmacy Insurance Agency, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority

Perhaps that’s why more than 11,000 members have already joined!

Could you be getting more from your Professional Indemnity insurer?

Much more than PI insurance:●Demand compensation from your employer if you are treated harshly at work

● Take your side if your error may have been caused by actions of your employer

●Organise conferences and provide bi-monthly risk management information

●Support locums in situations where employers refuse to pay fees promptly

We guarantee that no other Pharmacist’s PI provider delivers benefits to employees and locums as comprehensive as those provided by the PDA.

The Pharmacists’ Defence Association is an appointed representative of the Pharmacy Insurance Agency, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority

Perhaps that’s why more than 11,000 members have already joined!

Among other skills, these two appointees have extensive experience inadvising individuals, assessing and supporting claims and defending

respondents in employment tribunals.

As a direct consequence of its growth and strategic direction, the PDA is proud to

announce three new key staff appointments.

The NHS is one of the largest employers in the world, but it is also an employer that is particularly keen on constant restructuring and reorganisation. The real effect is felt by the people who are employees - in terms of their jobs, their terms and their pay and as is usually the case, there will be winners and losers.

Whilst laws exist to protect the rights of employees, PCTs have HR departments to fall back on.

They will have their interests well covered – but will you?

We have provided our members with advice in many

employment dispute situations including those related to mergers and closures of PCTs and advised and supported more than 2,000 pharmacists in disputes and in many cases have secured better outcomes for them. To date we have secured almost £200,000 worth of compensation payments from employers for members who have been treated harshly or unfairly.

If you are unhappy about the way that you have been treated by PCT management, then why not do something about it?

Pharmacy employment specialists availableProviding seminars and risk management toolsExperienced Primary Care Pharmacists availableBacked by £300,000 of Legal Defence Costs insurance£5,000,000 worth of Professional Indemnity insurance

WILL MERGING PCTs AFFECT YOU?In the last year PDA has supported many Primary Care Pharmacists who are

concerned about their employment prospects.

11,000 pharmacists have already joined the PDA. Have you?

ANOTHER DAY.ANOTHER RESTRUCTURING OF THE NHS.

11,000 pharmacists have already joined the PDA.