|
That
there are problems in the Quality Care program is evidenced by
the level of complaints that are directed towards i2P and commented
on by other authors from time to time.
No one can argue that it is not "politically correct"
to have standards and be able to benchmark against standards.
This is the difficulty.
Whose standards, how many will be benchmarked, (and to what depth
and detail), and who pays?
This is the real debate, and further editor discussion follows
after you have had a chance to examine Tim Logan's comments, in
response to John Skyllas' material presented in this edition.
Tim
Logan:
"John
Skyllas, no Guild official criticises your opinions on the quality
of their output, or the correctness of their opinions. What they
object to is being accused of behaving unethically (at best),
or corruptly (at worst). They particularly object to these accusations
being based on incomplete or inaccurate information, which is
then recklessly presented by you as fact. They question your credibility
when you are confronted with your inaccuracy and then do not display
respect for the readers of this newsletters by admitting that
you got it wrong.
I leave readers to form their own judgement of my response to
your post on Auspharmlist, by reprinting it below. It is recorded
on the Auspharmlist website.
I'd like to
congratulate John for having the commitment to put his views in
writing to the Guild (I'm guessing you mean Stephen Greenwood?),
API & ACCC regarding this issue (the
API/Sigma proposed wholesaler merger).
I heartily endorse your right to air your views on this subject,
or any other for that matter anytime, anywhere (within the laws
against libel & slander, of course).
What you may
not have been aware of, John, is that the Guild in fact conducted
a member survey, which demonstrated a significant majority of
those surveyed (2:1) would not have a problem with the merger,
especially in light of the fact that the Guild extracted many
undertakings from the players involved to protect members interests,
before any objections it had were withdrawn. If it had been any
closer, I'm sure we would have had to take a neutral stance.
All Councillors
declare their interests when joining Council, and declare them
for the minutes when appropriate. When you say that the only reason
you can think for the Council not to share your opinion on this
matter is that every councillor felt they would benefit as shareholders,
I am slightly incredulous. Did you never entertain the concept
that you and those sharing your view in this regard might not
account for a significant proportion of Guild members? An organisation
of 4500 members (or thereabouts) will never reflect the views
of all of it's members, all of the time. Hopefully, the Council
gets it right for a significant majority on almost all occasions.
It's apparent
that on this occasion, your individual view was not reflected
by your organisation and that you feel passionately that your
view was the correct one. I hope it's an isolated occurrence,
and that all the other things the Guild does on your behalf reflect
your needs and aspirations more accurately.
As a Councillor,
I will always be happy to discuss issues such as this, and to
hear the point of view of others. Sometimes we will agree, sometimes
we won't, sometimes I'll have to adjust the stance I have on an
issue to reflect that of the majority (or resign, I suppose),
but I'll always support your right to be heard (as does my colleague
Patrick, I'm sure). I hope you'll also support my right to have
a view that differs from yours without having my ethics and performance
as a (virtual) Company Director called into question.
Best wishes
Tim Logan
B Pharm FAICD
(Qld National Councillor - Pharmacy Guild of Australia)
(Beneficial
shareholder in Sigma Co, Mayne, Colonial Health & Biotech
Wholesale Managed Fund, and now Arrow)
The answers
to the other question Mr Skyllas poses can be found by reading
the Constitution of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, and the Annual
Report, both available on the Guild website. I wonder whether
Mr Skyllas has taken the trouble to read either document.
Finally, members
did not pay the registration of Councillors at the APP - this
was organised by each individual. Council is held just before
the APP instead of in Canberra, so there is effectively no difference
in travel costs for Councillors."
Editor's
comments continue:
Organisations such as the Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA)
are open to criticism if their policies and procedures are not
seen to be in the best interests of members, or indeed, the community
at large.
Criticism of the PGA can be found in a number of pages of this
publication.
Whether it is constructive criticism or not is always in the eyes
of the beholder (therefore criticism is rarely seen by the organisation
criticised as being "constructive").
However, none of us are immune to criticism and sustained comment
can generally begin to influence organisational policy, or at
least cause it to undergo a review.
In general, comment should be directed to the organisation in
total, rather than single out individuals.
It all depends on circumstances.
Criticism is often lost or suppressed within an organisation,
and one of the major reasons for the establishment of i2P was
to provide a conduit for opinion, which is not controlled directly
or indirectly, by any pharmacy organisation, manufacturer or wholesaler.
Also, the PGA does not represent all pharmacists, but is given
a central role in government negotiations which affect all pharmacists.
Thus non PGA members are given a voice.
Even Auspharmlist is not a fully open forum, because it is sponsored
by the PGA and material is filtered before being published. Having
said that, Auspharmlist is doing an excellent job in providing
an almost "real time" environment for pharmacist comment.
I would like to draw reader attention to a very recent Auspharmlist
poll which posed the following:
"The
Quality Care Pharmacy Program helps my pharmacy provide a quality
assured pharmacy service--a little?; a lot?; no"
The
published response was: a lot-- 31%; a little-- 48%; no-- 21%
Now
this is hardly a ringing endorsement of the QCPP given that the
majority (69%) sit in the "little" or "no"
segments.
So what is really happening?
Is the program poorly designed?
Has it been designed by management consultants who see a good
source of billing by ensuring the program is complex, and thus
always need consultants for implementation and assessment?
Why do assessor fees vary so much between states?
Is the program really too expensive?
Is there a strategy to ensure the taxpayer (via government agencies)
pays the majority of the real QCPP costs, given that it is consumers
driving this process?
Is there a need for program variation to match pharmacy size,
and so match the pharmacy's human resources and capital resources.
Should the program be implemented across the range of pharmacy
activity or impemented by rotation, one bit at a time, over a
reasonable timeframe?
It could be said that 69% of pharmacists already engaged in QCPP
agree with John Skyllas to a great extent, but have not had the
time, or the courage, to make a suitable comment.
As editor, I see John as trying to get across a point of view,
as a Guild member and a QCPP participant, in terms that are highly
visible, designed to attract attention.
In attracting attention, I see Tim defending the QCPP operation
because he has put a lot of personal effort into trying to make
it a success, and does not want to see the project diminished
in any way.
Both have presented their views in equally strong terms and appear
to be poles apart, but both, I believe are arguing for a successful
outcome.
I personally would like to see a successful QCPP but respectfully
suggest that it needs considerable refinement, or a complete re-think.
I am also willing to publish suggested solutions from any pharmacist
prepared to put pen to paper.
|
.jpg)
