Issues
arising from the Royal College of Pathologists Council meeting
held on the 11th May 2006
A
further meeting between the Modernisation panel and Pathology
Review Board about procurement from the Independent Sector was
due in June. The Carter Report is due to be published in June/
July. Some data still required for completion, particularly comparative
data from other countries including the USA. The Independent Sector
was reporting that costs could be reduced considerably based on
these data, but the RCPath was trying to obtain its own data to
verify this.
The
President had talked to the DoH about Connecting for Health, as
a number of Pathology related issues had not been addressed. A
formal meeting had been arranged.
The
President was on the Best Research for Best Health Implementation
Group to advise Sally Davies. There had been considerable debate
about the selection criteria for Faculty membership, particularly
for paramedical staff e.g.nurses. There would be a stakeholders
meeting on June 20 th 2006.
A
letter had been written to CPA UK about the responsiveness of
CPA to queries etc. A reply from CPA would be circulated to Regional
Chairs in due course. GF raised the issue of Immunology testing
and the Guidelines on the CPA website. GF was asked to contact
the Chair of the Immunology SAC. Peter Furness, College representative
on the CPA Board stated that CPA's hands were tied over some matters
due the need to comply with certain international standards.
There
was to be a Review of Health Research that would be broader than
Best Research for Best Health. £1 billion was to be ring-fenced
for health research being derived from the MRC, DoH and other
Research Councils.
The
HTA deadline for registration of tissue banks for research was
1 st September. The HTA would be using a light touch in the first
instance. On line registration, proportionate use of inspections
etc. There was some debate about the meaning of Tissue for Research
and whether all tissue stored with a primary purpose of diagnostics,
but with occasional use for research purposes, required registration.
It appears that there is a lack of clarity on this issue currently.
The
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges would be involved in developing
e-learning within certain pathology disciplines for use by F1
and F2 trainees. It was likely to be confined to Histopathology
and Haematology in the first phase as there was a great deal of
material to draw upon already.
The
College would be posting a clear statement about permit free training
on its web site.
A
document on Centralisation of hospital services had been prepared
by the Association of Medical Royal Colleges, although there had
been little reference to pathology in this document, and several
points raised about modernised pathology services had been inaccurate.
It
had been agreed, after a business case was tabled, to fund the
ongoing development of the workforce database from College funds.
Initially only College members would be entered onto the database.
Later the IMBS and ACB membership could be included. This would
replace the current annual manual validation of the workforce
by Regions. The source of data for the database was discussed.
It was unclear what mechanism would provide the most robust data;
self reporting, College tutors, Heads of Service etc.
Trent
Region reported that some Foundation Trusts had not approved leave
for consultants for non Trust activities including representing
the College on job panels. This was viewed as parasitic, as these
Trusts would benefit from these activities. It would also have
an adverse effect on members, as they would be less competitive
for CEAs. It was felt that JDs should include a formal statement
that the particular Trusts would support such activities if individuals
were appointed to a consultant post.
The
problem of unspent Capital funding for Modernisation projects
was discussed. It was likely that this would be used by SHAs to
fund overspend.
A
paper on Fellowship/ membership/ Good standing had been prepared
by the PSU. The working group had recommended replacing membership
by fellowship, and possibly having an associate designation after
passing the first part examination. This proposal would be put
to members and fellows.
The
subject of Good standing was discussed. It was felt that it had
little meaning and should be removed from College documentation.
The
protocol for the introduction of new tests in pathology (e.g.
molecular testing) would be taken forward by a small working group
chaired by Peter Furness. It was likely that NICE would be re-examining
diagnostics, including DNA testing, as part of its remit in future.
|
