The document provides minutes from a Council meeting held on November 10, 2011. Key discussions and decisions included:
- Approval of the rolling corporate plan for 2012-2015 with additions around quality assurance of pre-registration training and a review of continuing professional development.
- Agreement to the proposed approach to consulting on regulation of pharmacy premises standards subject to review of draft standards.
- Approval of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Scheme and prosecution policy.
- Agreement to maintain the emergency registration policy with planned review in late 2012.
- Noting of performance updates and financial reports.
A form for GPs and practice staff to refer their patients to a community pharmacy for a Medicines Use Review or to be enrolled in the New Medicines Service.
A form for GPs and practice staff to refer their patients to a community pharmacy for a Medicines Use Review or to be enrolled in the New Medicines Service.
GUIDELINES ON CONDUCTING CLINICAL RESEARCH IN HOSPITAL KUALA LUMPUR. First Edition 2021.
By Clinical Research Centre, Hospital Kuala Lumpur (CRC HKL)
MOH/S/CRC/66.21(GU)-e
Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and
patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be
useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research
findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications,
however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting,
and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group
of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention
Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process
involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi
survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and
a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist
(brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided,
how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well
(planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010
statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the
emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply
across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR
checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item,
and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should
improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to
structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess
the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
ICH GCP guidelines for mpharmacy 2nd sem 204T subject.
topic include the brief description regarding ICH GCP
THE GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICES AND
THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF HORMONIZATION.
THAT INCLUDE the regulation of all pharmaceutical industries.
I have enjoyed a 20+ year history of accomplishment in the healthcare industry; first, as a practicing clinician and provider; currently as a healthcare consultant specializing in health information management, the revenue cycle, and clinical information systems (e.g., Epic & Cerner).
EVIDENCE- BASED PRACTICE PROPOSAL SECTION A2EVIDENCE- BASED PR.docxSANSKAR20
EVIDENCE- BASED PRACTICE PROPOSAL SECTION A:2
EVIDENCE- BASED PRACTICE PROPOSAL SECTION A:7
Running head: EVIDENCE- BASED PRACTICE PROPOSAL SECTION A:1
Evidence- Based Practice Proposal- Section A: Organizational Culture and Readiness Assessment
Evidence based practice (EBP) should be fundamental in every healthcare setting in the sense that it ensures decisions based on the best evidence integrated with clinical experience and the various expectations of patients within the healthcare setting (Gale & Schaffer, 2009). The main objective and aim in evidence-based practice protocols are to integrate the clinical expertise with the patient’s perspective and the scientific evidence in a bid to provide efficient and high quality healthcare services which are based on the needs, values, interests and culture of the patients served by the healthcare organization in question. It should be noted that evidence- based practice is essential as it does integrate the perspective of the patient, including values and culture in providing higher quality healthcare supported by research and scientific evidence (Gale & Schaffer, 2009). In essence it ensures the provision of quality and reliability of the healthcare services provided within the healthcare setting.
In regards to the healthcare organization I am currently employed by, and would opt for the implementation of EBP in, the organization is ready for the implementation of EBP in the sense that all stakeholders are in support of implementation of EBP protocols in the various units. Considering the fact that my organization is a very small critical access hospital in rural Georgia, with very limited resources, the organization is ready to fully adopt EBP. All stakeholders believe that such implementation is critical and vital for ensuring quality, and reliable healthcare service that is comprehensive and not only meets but exceeds the needs and expectations of our clients.
According to the survey, some respondents were in full support of the implantation of EBP, while others were not. It should be noted that the category scores for the survey varied due to the fact that respondents had a varied degree of preference when it comes to the implementation of EBP, and changes to practice within the facility. Most respondents responded higher in areas pertaining to changes in providing educational strategies according to EBP guidelines (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). Incorporating EBP within the facility basically requires all the organizational stakeholders to develop a culture of openness and inquiry since such implementation provides very clear parameters for quality and efficient care (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). Some of the notable barriers to the full implementation of EBP include lack of managerial commitment to the full implementation, lack of resources due to the size and financial situation of the facility. Above all lack of interest of upper management to assist staff in ...
GUIDELINES ON CONDUCTING CLINICAL RESEARCH IN HOSPITAL KUALA LUMPUR. First Edition 2021.
By Clinical Research Centre, Hospital Kuala Lumpur (CRC HKL)
MOH/S/CRC/66.21(GU)-e
Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and
patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be
useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research
findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications,
however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting,
and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group
of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention
Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process
involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi
survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and
a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist
(brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided,
how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well
(planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010
statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the
emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply
across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR
checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item,
and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should
improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to
structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess
the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
ICH GCP guidelines for mpharmacy 2nd sem 204T subject.
topic include the brief description regarding ICH GCP
THE GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICES AND
THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF HORMONIZATION.
THAT INCLUDE the regulation of all pharmaceutical industries.
I have enjoyed a 20+ year history of accomplishment in the healthcare industry; first, as a practicing clinician and provider; currently as a healthcare consultant specializing in health information management, the revenue cycle, and clinical information systems (e.g., Epic & Cerner).
EVIDENCE- BASED PRACTICE PROPOSAL SECTION A2EVIDENCE- BASED PR.docxSANSKAR20
EVIDENCE- BASED PRACTICE PROPOSAL SECTION A:2
EVIDENCE- BASED PRACTICE PROPOSAL SECTION A:7
Running head: EVIDENCE- BASED PRACTICE PROPOSAL SECTION A:1
Evidence- Based Practice Proposal- Section A: Organizational Culture and Readiness Assessment
Evidence based practice (EBP) should be fundamental in every healthcare setting in the sense that it ensures decisions based on the best evidence integrated with clinical experience and the various expectations of patients within the healthcare setting (Gale & Schaffer, 2009). The main objective and aim in evidence-based practice protocols are to integrate the clinical expertise with the patient’s perspective and the scientific evidence in a bid to provide efficient and high quality healthcare services which are based on the needs, values, interests and culture of the patients served by the healthcare organization in question. It should be noted that evidence- based practice is essential as it does integrate the perspective of the patient, including values and culture in providing higher quality healthcare supported by research and scientific evidence (Gale & Schaffer, 2009). In essence it ensures the provision of quality and reliability of the healthcare services provided within the healthcare setting.
In regards to the healthcare organization I am currently employed by, and would opt for the implementation of EBP in, the organization is ready for the implementation of EBP in the sense that all stakeholders are in support of implementation of EBP protocols in the various units. Considering the fact that my organization is a very small critical access hospital in rural Georgia, with very limited resources, the organization is ready to fully adopt EBP. All stakeholders believe that such implementation is critical and vital for ensuring quality, and reliable healthcare service that is comprehensive and not only meets but exceeds the needs and expectations of our clients.
According to the survey, some respondents were in full support of the implantation of EBP, while others were not. It should be noted that the category scores for the survey varied due to the fact that respondents had a varied degree of preference when it comes to the implementation of EBP, and changes to practice within the facility. Most respondents responded higher in areas pertaining to changes in providing educational strategies according to EBP guidelines (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). Incorporating EBP within the facility basically requires all the organizational stakeholders to develop a culture of openness and inquiry since such implementation provides very clear parameters for quality and efficient care (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). Some of the notable barriers to the full implementation of EBP include lack of managerial commitment to the full implementation, lack of resources due to the size and financial situation of the facility. Above all lack of interest of upper management to assist staff in ...
Similar to Novemer 2011 council meeting public (20)
EVIDENCE- BASED PRACTICE PROPOSAL SECTION A2EVIDENCE- BASED PR.docx
Novemer 2011 council meeting public
1. Minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 November 2011 at 129 Lambeth
Road, London SE1 7BT at 11.45 am
Present
Bob Nicholls - Chair Tina Funnell
Cathryn Brown Ray Jobling
Sarah Brown Liz Kay
Celia Davies Lesley Morgan
Soraya Dhillon Keith Wilson
Gordon Dykes Peter Wilson
John Flook Judy Worthington
In attendance
Duncan Rudkin (Chief Executive & Registrar)
Christine Gray (Head of Governance)
Martyn Schofield (Council Secretary)
Hugh Simpson (Director of Policy and Communications)
Hilary Lloyd (Director of Regulatory Services)
Bernard Kelly (Director of Resources and Corporate Development)
Elaine Mulingani (Head of Private Office)
Jane Robinson (Head of Communications)
Gerard McEvilly (Head of Legal Advice and Hearings Management) minute 510-511;
516-517
Priya Warner (Head of Standards and Fitness to Practise Policy) minute 512-513
Heather Walker (Business Planning and Improvement Lead) minute 510-513
Ambrose Paschalides (Standards Policy Advisor) minute 512-513
Martha Pawluczyk (Registration and International Policy Manager) minute 512-513
Terry Orford (Head of Customer Services) minute 518-519; 524-525
ATTENDANCE AND CHAIR’S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
507 The Chair welcomed everyone, including visitors observing the meeting: David
Prince, Remuneration Committee external member; Baroness Pitkeathley,
CHRE Chair; Ian Hamer, CHRE member and Mair Davies, Chair of the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society’s Welsh Pharmacy Board.
Page 1 of 7
2. Council minutes 10 November 2011
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
508 Cathryn Brown and Gordon Dykes declared interests in Item 6: Regulation of
pharmacy premises, as community pharmacists and, in Gordon Dykes’ case, a
superintendent pharmacist and owner of a retail pharmacy business. Liz Kay
declared an interest in the same item as a superintendent pharmacist of an NHS
Trust with some retail pharmacy functions
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
509 The minutes of the meeting held on 15 September were agreed as a true record
of the meeting subject to the following addition at the end of minute 487:
to continue working as dispensing/pharmacy assistants and medicine
counter assistants if they had chosen not to exercise their
grandparenting rights to register as a pharmacy technician.
MATTERS ARISING
509.1 With regard to minute 482, Duncan Rudkin (DR) stated that a report on the
preliminary activities on standard 3.4, relating to religious or moral belief, would
be submitted to Council in April 2012.
509.2 In relation to minute 495, DR reported that the dates of Council’s strategic risk
discussions had been more closely linked to the meeting dates of the Audit &
Risk Committee, which would ensure that the Council’s review of risks was
informed by the Committee’s recent views.
509.3 DR reported on minute 501 and stated that the timetable to consider the
Commission on effectiveness and efficiency was extremely tight but that the
GPhC and other regulators had urged the CHRE and the DH to ensure that full
consideration could be given to the seriousness of the issues. The review
currently coincided with the CHRE performance review exercise. An update
would be provided to the Council in December.
ROLLING CORPORATE PLAN APRIL 2012-MARCH 2015
510 DR introduced paper 11.11/C/01 and asked Council to consider Annex 1;
specifically whether the contents were correct and if continuing professional
development and pre-registration training should be included in the corporate
plan.
510.1 The Council members provided comments on the draft contents of the corporate
plan and requested the inclusion of a piece of work specifically on quality
Page 2 of 7
3. Council minutes 10 November 2011
assurance of pre-registration training. It would not be timely to plan for a wider
policy review of pre-registration pharmacist training.
510.2 Council members requested that a review of the continuing professional
development framework should feature within the scope of the revalidation
project. The plan should also include work to scope and address a range of
pharmacy technician and support staff issues across all areas of the GPhC’s
remit following the implementation of compulsory registration for pharmacy
technicians.
510.3 DR confirmed that the final version of the plan would include information on
timing and resources of the tasks and would be reviewed regularly in response
to the changing internal and external context. DR also confirmed that it was
intended it should be a rolling three year plan; it would need to be updated
annually so that the organisation was always planning forward on a three year
basis.
511 The Council confirmed the proposed contents of the corporate plan with
the incorporation of the above points.
REGULATION OF PHARMACY PREMISES
512 Hugh Simpson (HS) introduced paper 11.11/C/02 and advised that the paper
detailed, amongst other things, the pre-consultative engagement work to date
and the proposed overall approach to the planned consultation. HS confirmed
that it remained the intention to present the draft standards and consultation
document to Council in early 2012.
512.1 In a lengthy discussion, Council members expressed concern about those
premises that were outside the regulatory framework, particularly unregistered
hospital pharmacies and dispensing doctors’ surgeries. Council identified a
need to consider the professional responsibilities of registrants working in
unregistered premises that did not meet the standards. Patient safety and
appropriate standards for service delivery from unregistered premises were
considered. It would be important for the consultation to be clear about the
distinction between registered premises and those premises where medicines
were dispensed but which were not registered.
512.2 There was also discussion about the varied role of superintendents in
community pharmacy and how this would affect how the standards were
enforced.
Page 3 of 7
4. Council minutes 10 November 2011
512.3 In response to questions raised by Council members, HS stated that the
consultation would set out clear explanations regarding the scope of the
regulatory framework as well as the regulatory reach of the GPhC. Patients had
a right to expect similarly high standards where pharmaceutical care was being
provided, regardless of who the regulatory body was.
512.4 The Chair summed up by stating that the Council agreed the proposal to
continue to develop the consultation ensuring that the document clearly set out
the regulatory framework.
513 The Council noted the pre-consultation engagement work carried out to
date and agreed the proposed approach to the planned consultation
subject to the opportunity to comment on the draft standards and formal
approval of the consultation document early in 2012.
EQUALITY DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION SCHEME
514 Elaine Mulingani (EM) introduced the background to paper 11.11/C/03 and
advised that the ‘social model of disability’ referred to societal, non-medical
barriers encountered by disabled people such as popular perceptions,
inaccessible buildings and transport. The model suggested that it was these
societal barriers that needed to be fixed (as distinct from the medical model of
disability, which primarily looked at the individual in medical terms).
514.1 It was noted that the implications for pre-registration pharmacists/tutors and
fitness to practise processes in Schools of Pharmacy would need to be fully
considered in light of the Scheme.
514.2 The Chair thanked EM and Vanda Thomas (VT) for the report, made some
suggestions for improvements, and noted that resources would need to be
allocated to enable effective implementation of the Scheme.
514.3 Council members thanked EM and VT for the excellent report.
515 The Council agreed the Equality Diversity and Inclusion Scheme and the
report of the consultation for publication, subject to the changes
discussed.
GPHC PROSECUTION POLICY
516 DR presented paper 11.11/C/04, referring to the Council’s previous discussion
on this topic. DR explained that the policy would apply across Great Britain and
was intended to reflect a proportionate approach, using approaches other than
prosecution whenever appropriate.
Page 4 of 7
5. Council minutes 10 November 2011
517 The Council agreed the GPhC prosecution policy.
EMERGENCY REGISTRATION
518 Terry Orford (TO) presented paper 11.11/C/05.
518.1 Council members questioned the policy of including former registrants on Part 2
(non-practising) of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain’s Register
of Pharmacists whose fitness to practise was not impaired. This was due to the
fact that this list would become out of date very quickly as the GPhC did not
keep a non-practising list as the regulator. There was also the issue of non-
practising former registrants not being required to carry out continuing
professional development.
518.2 DR advised that this group of former registrants would only be approached in an
emergency, and only after several other groups as listed in Appendix 1 had
been approached first. The GPhC had up to date information on when former
registrants had left the register. In response to a question about whether people
were aware they could be asked to practise in an emergency, DR stated that the
information given to persons leaving the register would be reviewed to ensure
this was covered.
519 The Council agreed to maintain the emergency registration policy, and
directed that it should be reviewed again towards the end of 2012.
GPHC ANTI-BRIBERY STATEMENT
520 Christine Gray (CG) introduced paper 11.11/C/06.
521 The Council agreed the anti-bribery statement.
AMENDMENT TO SCHEME OF DELEGATION
522 DR introduced paper 11.11/C/07. It was noted that the proposed delegation
would be consistent with the existing delegation of approval of the Welsh
Language Scheme itself.
523 The Council agreed to delegate approval of the Welsh Language Scheme
annual report to the Chief Executive & Registrar.
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
524 DR presented the paper 11.11/C/08 and TO provided the updated renewals
figures for the peak (end-December period) as follows: 4.6% pharmacists had
Page 5 of 7
6. Council minutes 10 November 2011
not renewed; 2.7% of pharmacy technicians had not renewed; 1,125 owners
relating to 2000 premises had not renewed, although this was a manual process
and some payments were still being reconciled. In order to be registered with
the GPhC, registrants needed to have renewed their registration by 31 October
2011 for their renewal to take effect from January 2012.
524.1 DR advised that the clear message to those who had not renewed in time was
that they were in breach of their obligations, however the GPhC would be as
helpful as possible to those who had overlooked renewing or missed the
deadline, but it was important for those registrants or owners to contact the
GPhC as a matter of urgency.
524.2 TO reported that currently 2914 applications for pharmacy technician
registration under the grandparenting arrangements still needed to be
processed, 34% of which required further information from applicants. The
customer services team were working through the applications as quickly as
possible and remained confident that all applications would be processed by
end-December 2011.
524.3 DR reported that a paper would be brought to Council in advance of the June
2012 registration exam which would detail the measures in place to ensure that
the exam ran smoothly. In response to a statement listed in Appendix 2 of the
report from the Board of Assessors, DR advised that the issue of ‘formulaic’
appeals would be studied further.
524.4 Bernard Kelly (BK) reported on the management accounts and advised that
there had been a significant reduction in expenditure on professional fees as a
result of the new contractual arrangements with external legal firms and a
greater use of internal advocates and this represented a significant efficiency
saving.
525 The Council noted the performance across the customer services and
fitness to practise functions and the financial performance.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE & REGISTRAR’S REPORT
526 DR presented paper 11.11/C/09.
526.1 HS reported that Martha Pawluczyk, Registration and International Policy
Manager, had recently attended a conference in Brussels that reported on a
planned review of the EU directive on recognition of professional qualifications
and stated that the GPhC was continuing to work with the other health
professional regulators on this and related matters.
Page 6 of 7
7. Council minutes 10 November 2011
526.2 In response to a Council member query on the heavy workload for the
development of standards for education and training, DR reported that the work
had been planned for and allocated accordingly. One post was still being
advertised.
527 The Council noted the report.
AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE UNCONFIRMED MINUTES
528 John Flook introduced paper 11.11/C/10.
529 The Council noted the unconfirmed minutes of the Audit & Risk
Committee meeting held on 13 October 2011.
ANY OTHER NOTIFIED BUSINESS
530 The Chair confirmed that the reason for going into confidential session was
because the disclosure of reports could be prejudicial to the commercial
interests of the GPhC; and the reports referred to individuals who could be
prejudiced by disclosure.
531 There being no further public business, the meeting closed at 2.58pm.
Date of next meeting – 12 January 2012 - London
Page 7 of 7