Issues
arising from the Royal College of Pathologists Council meeting
held on the 15th September 2005
Mike
Murphy and Danielle Friedman were among colleagues elected to
College Council. They will be invited to be observers on Regional
Council.
The
President would be arranging a meeting between Lord Carter of
Coles and College's Modernisation Reference Panel. This panel
would act as College's interface in feeding back on the Review
of Pathology services.
Several
preliminary points on the recent DoH document on Pathology Modernisation
were made:
•
The definition of pathology was unclear.
•
Economies of scale appear not to have been taken into account
in developing the idea of plurality of provision e.g. the impact
on the phlebotomy service. There had been no consultation on the
plurality of provision with GPs.
•
WAG had noted that no reference to training of pathologists with
appropriate skills had been made. Curriculum change may be required
to train pathologists appropriately or else the uptake of new
technologies may be difficult.
•
Elements of care may be lost e.g. contact tracing etc.
•
There had been a lack of emphasis on quality. Accreditation of
all services was essential.
•
It was agreed that outcomes were important, and clinical role
played by pathologists in this needed to be stressed (direct clinical
care, MDTs etc).
•
The President would be corresponding with Lord Carter summarising
these issues. There was likely to be an interaction with other
bodies IBMS ACP etc.
The
need for College representatives to be on Consultant appointment
panels and involvement in job description review had been discussed
with the representative body of Foundation Trusts. A concordat
had been the outcome. It was necessary for College to deliver
a timely service. College representative would continue to play
a similar advisory role as they do now. There would be no legal
obligation for Foundation Trusts to take advice, but difficult
to ignore advice from College.
A
letter had been received from the MHRA. The risk-benefits of devices
should be better reported to users to help selection. A better
system of reporting adverse incidence could be used to develop
evidence base.
A
40% fall in numbers of academic pathologists had been reported
by CHMS, whilst posts in academic medicine had risen by 30 percent.
There had been a culling of posts and lack of candidates. A debate
on the reasons for this ensued.
It
was noted that the Ethics Committee could give general advice
only. There was a continuing struggle for members to differentiate
service, research and audit?
The
last Academy of Royal Colleges had been attended by Peter Rubin
from PMET
A
perceptions audit of the Academy had been untaken.
It
appeared that there was a void in medical leadership that could
be taken forward by the Academy, however it was felt that the
relationship between the College and Academy needed to be better
defined.
A
document drafted by Peter Furness in response to the Human tissue
Act and Draft Codes of Practice was circulated (now sent to members
by e-mail). Confusion remained about transplantable material,
which currently only referred to living donors. Clarification
was required. The current provisions for research without consent
(on anonymised material, lacking a name) was complicated by the
Data protection act.
A
paper on consent in genetic testing was approved.
A
draft paper on ‘Good medical practice' from the GMC was circulated.
Further comments were sought by 1st Nov.
The
Workforce database software had been demonstrated. The dataset
currently required for entry was large, and it would be piloted
as a modified version in NW England. The Workforce review recommendations
were discussed. It had been emphasized that workforce planning
required more than defining the number of post-holders. There
had been an Increase in unfunded posts over recent years.
STA
had approved all curricula submitted, and all were PMETB compliant.
Credentials panels were now complete for all disciplines.
The
possible move of Milton Keynes from Eastern to SE England Region
was discussed briefly. Regional boundaries would be discussed
further at Regional Chairs' meeting.
A
Pathology Hall of Fame would be established in the Education centre.
The
issue of ‘Good standing' was discussed and it was felt that a
self declaration about any ongoing disciplinary review should
be included in defining it and would be included in promoting
members to fellows.
Results
of a web-based survey of members and fellows would be summarised
in the Bulletin and would be reviewed by SACs and Regional Councils.
Thirty percent of members felt that College did not represent
them satisfactorily. Few knew who represented them on Regional
Council.
Regional
Councils would be involved in nominating for Honorary fellowships
previously nominated by Executive of College.
Jane
Davis Director of the NHS purchasing and supply agency (PASA)
had stated that PASA was aiming to save several million pounds.
It would develop a Supply chain Excellence programme to get value
for money, using national contract for procurement purchasing
pathology, and possible 'Preferred Supplier' status for some companies.
There
was increasing pressure for ‘On call payments' for SpR not to
paid by Trusts. It was felt that College should make an explicit
statement in training programme documents about the essentiality
for on-call experience. Non payment may have an adverse effect
on recruitment.
|
