Join the members group    Follow Us

Spring 2015 e-Newsletter

Hello and welcome to your first 2015 newsletter!

The present issue starts with Keith Bragman’s thought provoking article on the future of medicines development and how it is likely to be shaped by 4P medicines. Further highlights include a noteworthy article by Jean Cooper Moran summarising proceedings from an important conference on collaborative public and patient involvement and engagement programmes and research projects. Sue Tansey has also written a great summary of a paediatric research ethical seminar recently organised by the Faculty.

If you are a pharmaceutical physician working in the USA or Canada, kindly note that an inaugural networking meeting is being organised for 15 June 2015 in Washington DC; please attend if you can – details inside. And finally, if you want to participate in some philanthropic work, you will find Stuart Dollow’s article interesting.

Finally as I always say, this is your newsletter. Please feel free to contribute and yes, all suggestions for improvement are warmly welcome. Please contact myself or Ben Cottam in the Faculty office (b.cottam@fpm.org.uk) with your ideas.

Happy reading and enjoy the sunshine!

Dr Asad Khan MFPM
Editor of the Newsletter
Advocacy Committee


Contents


If you wish to print out all the articles then please right-click and select 'print'

Alternatively, you can download this edition as a PDF here.


 Innovation in Medicines Development

Dr Keith Bragman MD (Lond) FRCP FRCPath PFPM
President, FPM

I am sometimes asked what the FPM contributes as a healthcare partner to the practice of medicine. It is true that many of you practice pharmaceutical medicine at a distance from patients. However I am always impressed by the duty of care to the patient that is displayed by the overwhelming majority of you. Also we should not forget that many of the advances in healthcare take their origins from the revolution in medicines development over the last century.

Clinicians at the bedside are increasingly dependent upon the therapeutic advances that are required by modern medicine. Whether we are dependent upon medicines development linked to the sophisticated analysis of mutations in the genome or just better formulations to effect drug delivery, medical practice has become increasingly dependent upon pharmaceutical medicine as a speciality. Also the regulation of medicines, medical affairs and related commercial practice before and after approval, require a deep understanding of the medical speciality. Consequently the FPM is becoming more vocal and external looking. In representing pharmaceutical medicine and the accompanying standards of practice, we also increasingly seek to bridge with the needs of our members.

So it was not surprising that the recent Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) and Vermilion Life Sciences meeting on reengineering medicines development displayed a need for drug development to become more focused using new technology1. These include genomic analysis, metabolomics, proteomics and other sciences leading to improved personalised medicines and with greater input from society. Also there was recognition that the current cost of drug development had become unsustainable. We have though reached a tipping point in affordability. For example sequence analysis of the human genome now costs less than 1000 USD and we should expect more price reduction. Are these sciences really new - perhaps not? We are now at the point when expensive technologies, which previously remained in the domain of research, can now be increasingly used to identify and manage new targets for drug development.

A greater role by the NHS in the selection of geno- and phenotypically defined hospital trial subjects was anticipated in the ABPI and Vermilion Life Sciences meeting. Randomised clinical trials would be replaced by a matched pair analysis and in theory fewer subjects would be needed to define efficacy. There would be less direct monitoring at clinical trial sites with a significant cost saving. However, no examples were given to support these assumptions. Not mentioned was the requisite reduction in the carbon footprint related to medicines development and the overall cost to society.

There is increasing interest in adaptive trial design. However the regulator will continue to respond to the plans of the owner of intellectual property and/or the submitting institution. Also there remains a tendency to repeat banal clinical trial history than run the risk of exciting new methodology. This brave new world in clinical trials needs better computerisation linking NHS hospitals. Who will pay and when? However the message is still clear that with better defined patient populations and improved drug target identification, we can expect a more compelling clinical and statistical effect.

The ABPI and Vermilion Life Sciences meeting dovetails nicely with a recent letter on ‘a new social contract on medical innovation’ by Professor Rob Horne et al 2. They argue that the one size fits all population-based strategy that delivered the blockbuster drugs of the past, the future of medicines development is likely to be shaped by 4P medicines that are predictive, pre-emptive, personalised, and participatory. But are we ready for the revolution? Moving to 4P medicines will require the engagement of patients, health professionals, health-care organisations, regulatory agencies, and commissioners with alignment of their respective interests. The rising costs of care for older people fall on a shrinking workforce. How will this change affect our capacity and willingness to fund 4P medicines? Since wealthier people are more willing to invest in preventive health care, future health outcomes in old age could become even more dependent on wealth, and exacerbate inequalities and conflicts about financing because the heaviest users of health services will be the poor.

In support of the above, we are representing the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges at meetings on medical optimisation hosted by NHS England (NHSE) and the ABPI. The Faculty has long had an interest in improving medicines adherence. We have the opportunity to improve measures of adherence in the development process, the translation of this work to clinical practice with improved patient outcomes, and eventually major cost savings for the NHS.

With greater involvement by the patient and society in clinical trials, there comes a need for greater transparency. Not to mention all of the other groups and stakeholders mentioned above. That is one of the reasons why Good Pharmaceutical Medical Practice supports registering all clinical trials and disseminating the summary results after trial completion and not market authorisation or discontinuation of the product3. It is true that, for the moment, more requests for clinical trial results come from the commercial sector than from patients or independent third parties4. Also, significant differences between reporting results and the clinical stage of medicines development now exist between the regions of the world. There is concern that this is influencing the allocation of clinical trials. These findings are not in the interests of the patient or local commerce. However this may change in time.

We have a responsibility to anticipate change in the behaviour of society. Also, as pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies engage with an increasing number of stakeholders in medicines development, we should increasingly assume that once you are in the clinic, everybody knows what you are doing. The odd thing is that I was taught this aphorism early on in my career in pharmaceutical medicine!
We can be certain of one thing: Whoever wins the general election in the United Kingdom, medical innovation and drug development will remain high on the agenda. We have too much at stake in an increasingly global discipline. Patient outcomes, the health of society, the public purse and fiscal returns on investment are all linked. Medical innovation should remain high on our agenda too.

1. Reengineering medicines development, ABPI and Vermilion Life Sciences, March 4th, 2015
2. R Horne et al, The Lancet, Vol 385 March 28, 2015
3. Good pharmaceutical medical practice, The Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom, 2014
4. S Bonini et al, N Engl J Med 2014; 371:2452-2455


 Faculty News

FPM North American Members Network Meeting
June 15, 2015; 6:00 – 8:00pm
Renaissance DC Downtown Hotel, Washington DC

An inaugural network meeting for all members of the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine who live and work in the USA or Canada is being held in Washington DC during the 51st Annual Meeting of the Drug Information Association. The meeting is on Monday, June 15th 2015, from 6:00 – 8:00pm, at the Renaissance DC Downtown Hotel, 999 9th Street NW, Washington DC 20001.

Organized on behalf of the Faculty’s International Committee, this meeting is part of our on-going outreach to members of the Faculty currently living and working in N American and we hope those of you who will be attending the DIA meeting, or who are able to be in DC in June, will be able to join us. Of course, any members of the Faculty from outside the USA and Canada who are attending the DIA meeting are also very welcome to join us.

Sharing their perspectives on pharmaceutical medicine, together with its recognition and development as a medical specialty in N America, will be Dr. Keith Bragman, President of the Faculty and Dr. Robert Hardi, President of the Academy of Physicians in Clinical Research. Guests will also have the opportunity to network over canapés and drinks.

The meeting is free to attend!
Please email fpm@fpm.org.uk to register your interest.
Contact a.mandich@fpm.org.uk for more information.

Professor Alan Boyd to be the next President of the FPM

The Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine is pleased to announce that Professor Alan Boyd FFPM has been elected as its next President. Professor Boyd, currently Vice President, will take up office on 19th November 2015.

Prof Boyd commented ‘I am delighted and honoured to have this opportunity to become the next President of the Faculty. I have been involved in the activities of the Faculty for many years now and I will commit myself to work with our members, health care professionals, the Royal Colleges and Faculties and our stakeholders to build on the significant achievements of the Faculty to date. I want to make sure that we continue to use our expertise and leadership to advance the science and practice of pharmaceutical medicine for the benefit of patients. As President, my view is that the time has come for the Faculty to be more ‘outward looking’ and my aim will be to position the Faculty as the ‘go-to experts’ and the voice of authority for pharmaceutical medicine professionals, which I believe will attract more external groups to the Faculty for our opinions, guidance and advice.’

Dr Keith Bragman, current President said 'I am delighted that Professor Alan Boyd has been elected as the next President of the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine. With each presidency comes the opportunity to add to the history of the Faculty. The Faculty is the standard setting body and voice of pharmaceutical medicine. We have begun to express those standards beyond the life of the Faculty. Alan has the experience to ensure that the Faculty will help further establish its role as a healthcare partner and in the wider outside world. I wish him continuing success.'

Prof Boyd will outline his vision for the Faculty over the next 3 years in the next edition of the newsletter.


External News

UMbRELLA: Shaping the Future of Medical Revalidation

UMbRELLA is a UK-wide collaboration of regulatory academics and revalidation implementers brought
together to deliver an independent evaluation of medical revalidation.  This major research study
has been commissioned by the General Medical Council but will be conducted independently by
UMbRELLA.   As part of the research, a census survey of licensed doctors will be conducted.  This
is expected to commence in late May/June 2015 and participants will receive an email from the
UMbRELLA Research Team with details.  Find out more about the UMbRELLA revalidation evaluation
research here, and follow the research on Twitter
@revalidation and on the  LinkedIn and Facebook (umbrella-revalidation) pages.


Valuing Patient Involvement: INVOLVE Conference “Changing Landscapes and the need for change” 26-27th November 2014

Ms Jean Cooper Moran
Lay Trustee, FPM

Jean Cooper Moran is a patient/public involvement strategic adviser to NHS Trusts and a lay member of the Institute of Cancer Research PCRRP (Patient and Carer Research Review Committee). She was senior manager for patient and public involvement for the National Institute for Health Central Commissioning Facility from 2006 to 2013, developing and managing the involvement of patients and the public in the panel and committee work and lay review tasks offered by the NIHR research funding programmes. Jean is a lay Trustee for the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine.

 

 


‘Changing Landscapes’ reflected the achievements and creative upswell in collaborative public and patient involvement and engagement (PPI/E) programmes and research projects within the National Health Service (NHS) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) institutions since the conferences began in 2006. The 2014 event hosted over 500 delegates, from the UK and overseas, at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, and included an international forum on innovative ideas about PPI/E in practice. Approximately fifty per cent of attendees were patients, carers and public members from patient organisations, charities and associated bodies. The remainder were academic researchers, PPI/E managers from NIHR and NHS communities and representatives of the service user-researcher community, notably in the area of mental health. Projects and documents that were discussed at the conference included:

  • “Breaking Boundaries” report on NIHR PPI/E to be published in 2015
  • “Quality standards for involving people in PPI/E” reports in 2015 resulting from the key findings of a working party led by the national organisation INVOLVE (www.invo.org.uk)
  • New Journal for PPI/E dissemination launched in 2015

‘Sharing Experiences’ plenary session facilitated by consultant Sally Crowe used coloured cards to indicate positive or negative personal experience of PPI/E A sea of yellow cards represented positive experiences of PPI.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The new journal for PPI/E dissemination, which was launched at the conference, is an innovative forum for PPI/E focused research articles and commentaries. The journal has a lay member and an academic as co-editors in chief. More information is available through BioMed Central www.biomedcentral.com. The editorial contact is Ella Flemyng, Journal Development Assistant ella.flemyng@biomedcentral.com.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPI/E) is a keynote of the National Institute for Health Research institutional research programmes and processes, creating a sustained and expanding community of motivated and experienced lay contributors to health and social care research. Increasingly patients and the public are also being involved in roles within NHS governance, either in the secondary system as NHS Trust governors, within NHS patient involvement structures, or in clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in primary care. These research-friendly, motivated people add value by contributing their knowledge of their condition in a range of inclusion and involvement roles; for example, in the assessment of new medicines, devices and diagnostics as well as new processes and procedures for healthcare management and patient safety. They work within the NIHR institutions’ committees and panels, in patient organisations and charities to bring forward the patient view. Many have volunteered for clinical studies sponsored by industry through their academic contacts and some companies have taken the initiative by exploring the potential for deploying PPI in product development and design in areas such as patient safety and the benefit-risk assessment. For more information on “INVOLVE”, the organisation charged by the Department of Health with responsibility to develop and manage PPI/E in the NIHR, please log on to www.invo.org.uk.

Breaking Boundaries

In his keynote speech, Dr. Russell Hamilton, Director of Research and Development at the Department of Health confirmed the “value-add” of PPI in the research priority setting and design process. “High quality patient involvement and patient engagement is essential for high quality research.” He noted that 100% of NHS Trusts are now research-active, engaging patients and the public in dialogues about priority-setting for research topics, patient reported outcomes and patient safety issues. He also referred to the strategic review on NIHR PPI to be published later in 2015 as the eagerly-awaited “Breaking Boundaries” report. This report is an important step in the creation of the partnership roles between the patient community, the research community and stakeholders including industry.

Evidence for impact of involvement

This is a question INVOLVE has spent much time on, and a resource of evidence for impact of involvement in NIHR funded studies including the Healthcare Technology Assessment programme is available on the website www.invo.org.uk/resources. A short digest of this material is available as the “Evidence for Impact” report which illustrates the experience of those taking part as patient/public contributors. A recently published quantitative analysis of the impact of patient involvement on health and social care research by Professor Til Wykes and colleagues found that timely recruitment to clinical studies was linked to a well designed PPI framework within the study and this was independent of other potential influences on the outcome. (Ennis, L & Wykes, T 2013, 'Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study' British Journal of Psychiatry, vol 203, no. 5, pp. 381-386)

Achieving quality PPI/E partnering

Alison Faulkner, independent service-user researcher, introduced a new framework for approaching involvement which developed from a consultative process on behalf of the National Service User Network (NSUN). The “4PI involvement standards” – Principles, Purpose, Presence, Process and Impact – set out the areas to be discussed by researchers and those taking PPI roles in a study and can be easily accessed and used by organisations seeking partnership with the community of mental health service users.

International Cooperation in PPI/E

Other organisations, such as the International Alliance of Patients’ Organisations (IAPO), working with Popewood Consulting and Novo Nordisk, have created toolkits for patient organisations and charities to deploy as part of their strategic approaches to stakeholders and funders. They provide some case study examples for interaction with pharmaceutical companies.

Professor Mogens Horder of the Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, spoke on behalf of the Joint Partnership for Neurological Disease (JPND) which represents 27 European member countries and Canada and is focused on Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases. Professor Horder pointed out that close to 85% of public research funds in the EU are spent independently by Member States and cultural distinctions are very important when planning research in these patient communities. To further cooperation in this disease area, the 28 JPND Member Countries agreed on a common strategy, forming an Action Group and Advisory Board to develop an implementation plan and tools, and sought advice from the neurology research community to identify peers and good practice examples.

Patient-Centred Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

Suzanne Schrandt, Deputy Director for Patient Engagement for PCORI explained how their process provides strategic guidance for research planning for involvement in outcomes research, a toolkit for enabling involvement and an evaluation process. To receive funding from PCORI, an applicant must demonstrate how patients are involved in identifying the research question, designing the study, and sharing the study results. PCORI also includes patients and other stakeholders in all stages of the research process, from topic selection, to merit review, to evaluation. Ref: PCORI Engagement Rubric http://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-Engagement-Rubric-with-Table.pdf

INTEGRATE-HTA

Louise Brereton, Research Fellow at the University of Sheffield, explained how the EU-funded Integrate-HTA project, directed to assessing complex healthcare technologies using novel methods, addressed differing PPI/E research methods for assessing palliative care in six European countries. Lessons learned have been added to the overall shared knowledge base.

European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI)

This project is well known to the pharmaceutical industry. EUPATI’s ambition is to extend the scope of EUPATI-UK to cover medical innovation in preclinical and clinical research, to enable the delivery of patient-centred health research. Sue Pavitt, Co-Academic Lead of EUPATI gave an update on the progress of their programmes and commented: “We have started the first year of our EUPATI patient expert training course in October 2014. Later this year we are due to launch the EUPATI patient advocate toolkit which we hope will reach a wide audience.” In common with other organisations working in PPI/E, EUPATI intends to share its resources online. “Very soon we will begin work on our EUPATI online resource library for the health-interested public. The challenge is now to spread the word to patient advocates, patient representatives, and patients, as well as to our academic and industry partners.”


Summary of the FPM Conversation
‘The Science & Ethics of Paediatric Research’
15th Dec 2014

Dr Sue Tansey FFPM
Medical Director, Paediatrics at Premier Research Group

 

 

On the 15th December 2014 the Faculty hosted a conversation devoted to the science and ethics of paediatric research at the Royal College of General Practitioners. We were lucky enough to have a distinguished panel with Dr Mark Turner (Neonatologist and Co-Coordinator of GRIP the Global Research in Paediatrics network), Professor Irmgard Eichler (Senior Scientific Officer at the EMA), Professor Bobbie Farsides (Professor of Clinical and Biomedical Ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School) and Ms Jenny Preston (Consumer Liaison Manager for the NIHR-CRN: Children). All have a particular interest and expertise in paediatric clinical research.

First of all, Mark introduced us to some of the scientific challenges and compromises that need to be made in conducting clinical trials in children and neonates. He explained how clinical networks can be very helpful to industry when dealing with these issues and particularly with providing expert input to Paediatric Investigational Plans (PIPs) to ensure they are feasible. One helpful tip I took away was to try and time drug administration so that pharmacokinetic bloods can be collected at routine blood sampling times.

Irmgard went on to cover many of the important regulatory aspects related to paediatric clinical trials and PIPs. It was emphasised that, although every PIP application has to be evaluated on its own merit, the Paediatric Committee at the EMA aims to reduce duplication of clinical trials, particularly in situations where there are a limited number of paediatric patients to recruit into them (an example being in paediatric type 2 diabetes mellitus for which the EMA held a workshop with all stakeholders resulting in several action items/initiatives). During the subsequent discussion she mentioned that the EMA would be interested to hear from sponsor companies if they think a similar approach might be needed for a particular condition/category of investigational products.

Bobbie then discussed some of the important work being carried out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Working Party on Children and Clinical Research that she currently chairs. The group is working towards an ethical framework for involvement of children in research. She emphasised the importance of involving children and of doing research ‘with’ and not ‘on’ them and the principle of protecting them from research versus protecting them through research. Their report will be published on the 14th May 2015.

Finally, Jenny talked about how involving young people and families can improve our research. She showed a short film showcasing how the Children’s Network’s Young Persons’ Advisory Group (YPAG) can support industry with clinical trial protocols and presented some of the exciting initiatives in which they have been involved recently, many of which were linked to industry projects.

A lively Q&A session followed with many questions relating to PIPs and it was pointed out that companies are encouraged to approach the EnprEMA (European Network for Paediatric Research) for assistance with feasibility prior to submitting their PIPs at their email address: enprema@ema.europa.eu

 

 


Who Wants to Work for Free?

Dr Stuart Dollow FFPM
Chief Executive, Vermilion Life Sciences Ltd.

 

Yes, seriously. This was the question I asked on LinkedIn a few months ago to see who was interested in some philanthropic work. It came from a discussion I was having with a senior manager at a Non Governmental Organisation. They told me that they had many ideas for implementing new thinking that could benefit the pharmaceutical sector, but being publically funded, had limited time and resources to develop this. The resources they had were all committed to project work with strictly governed timelines. Now, while public bodies do not normally generate charitable thoughts from industry, the people who work in them are highly skilled and dedicated and under much greater resource constraints than those in commercial companies.

This started me thinking about how we might identify and remove some of the barriers to these new approaches. Much of my work relates to partnership approaches with different stakeholders, to change the medicines development model through different ways of working. I recognise that change comes from a mix of behaviour and organisational change management.

I expect that most Faculty members work in the commercial sector, and that our interactions with public bodies are mainly snapshots based on specific areas of work or negotiation. As such, our perceptions of public bodies’ work and strategic objectives are probably quite limited. If however we could better understand their daily work, as well as providing an insight into our perceptions, it can only help build strong relationships. While I am sure many of us will have worked with NGOs to represent our company or industry in various discussions, that is very different to sitting on the other side of the table working towards their objectives.

Reflecting on catalysing change in our environment however, I recognised that involving industry staff would require a careful approach. The NGO’s objectives cannot be compromised, and their direction not unduly influenced by industry opinions, so acting as a true catalyst would be required, hence the LinkedIn post.

My business model is to work at no charge for selected groups, and I spend a varying amount of time per week doing so. As a result, I decided to test the water to see what appetite there was for others to work with NGOs on a part time basis, at no cost. I was somewhat overwhelmed with the response. Many experienced industry colleagues were interested in finding out more. Several prompted me to expand the original remit from process consulting for NGOs, to include consulting and project input for medical research charities. In hindsight, I ought to have considered medical research charities earlier, so I am grateful to those who prompted me to include them.

So what can we hope to achieve?

Providing experienced, strategically minded input to NGOs should improve mutual understanding, while increasing the momentum for forward looking change. Many of the NGOs I interact with are keen to work with industry and are very receptive to new ideas. Their limitation is the ability to resource change management and its implementation, due to the high cost of consulting. While change could benefit our sector on many levels, given that it is our taxes that fund these bodies, we also have every interest in their prudence with taxpayers’ money and improving ways of working.

Providing experienced input to medical research charities could assist development planning, clinical design and regulatory insight, as well as giving a degree of peer review and mentorship to ensure their research can best deliver its objectives, and make best use of its funding.

At present, I am collecting information from those people who are interested in participating. This includes areas of expertise, confirmation of permission from their employer, and that indemnity is in place. Simultaneously, I am contacting NGOs and charities to determine the level of interest and the type of skills desired so that experience can be matched to their needs. I will ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the individual and the charity or NGO, and then make introductions for them to discuss the work. I
would expect a short report during and at the end of the work to review progress and its successes, and any opportunities for improvement. Depending on the nature of the work, it may be possible to publish reports to reflect on the achievements.

While this is still a work in progress, I hope that in a small way that we can make a difference to the way we work and bring our experience to foster philanthropic work and relationships. Those that have already expressed an interest hope to provide a network of experienced industry colleagues who can make a real impact to our sector. It may also demonstrate that individuals are motivated by the difference they can make, rather than the more negative, but popular perception of our industry’s reputation.

If you are interested in learning more about where we can make a difference, please visit http://www.vermilion-lifesciences.co.uk/opportunities---responsibility.html and comment on the FPM LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Faculty-Pharmaceutical-Medicine-3998698/about) or email Vermilion Life Sciences on contact@vermilion-lifesciences.co.uk


 Ethical Issues Committee update

The Ethical Issues Committee has recently published a number of guidance and information papers on a variety of topics in pharmaceutical medicine. The papers are listed below and are available for download here.

 

 

 

 

  • Providing trial therapy to participants at the end of trials
  • Use of placebo-controlled trials
  • Compassionate Access to Unlicensed Medication (Expanded Access, Named Patient supply)
  • Informed consent for research in emergency situations

 Trainees’ Subcommittee update

Dr Stephanie Jones, Associate Member, FPM
Chair, Trainees Subcommittee, FPM

Hello, I am Dr Stephanie Jones, the Chair of the Trainees’ Subcommittee. I took over the role from Dr Rav Seeruthun in November 2013 and this is my first update to Faculty members about the subcommittee’s activities.

Since the Trainees’ Subcommittee’s last update in 2013 we appointed four new members: Dr Susan Brook, Dr Emma Hilton, Dr Neha Tanna and Dr Neil Thomson and held the Faculty Education Day for trainees, Educational Supervisors and Senior Specialty Advisors on 17th June 2014. We received positive feedback from attendees about the event and we are now busy planning the next Education Day, which is scheduled to be held on 16th June 2015 at the Royal College of Physicians in London. We strongly encourage all trainees and Educational Supervisors to attend the event because we believe you will learn a lot and gain much from talking to your peers. If you have colleagues who are thinking about enrolling on the PMST programme, sitting the Diploma in Pharmaceutical Medicine exam or both, they are most welcome to come along too.

As well as planning the Education Day the subcommittee is working on a proposal to launch an award for trainees. We believe that the award will help to promote our specialty’s contribution towards improving patient safety; to promote the Pharmaceutical Medicine Specialty Training (PMST) programme; to recognise
the work that trainees undertake as part of their training and to acknowledge the support that trainees’ Educational Supervisors provide. I would welcome your thoughts and comments about a trainee award, so why not visit the Faculty’s LinkedIn trainee subgroup here and post your thoughts and comments.

We continue to run our trainee representative scheme and I would strongly encourage you to take advantage of it and contact your trainee representative if you have a trainee-related matter that you would like to raise with them or have discussed at one of our subcommittee meetings. There is information about the trainee representative scheme here. Please contact Konrad Obiora at k.obiora@fpm.org.uk if you are not sure who your trainee representative is.

In closing, I strongly encourage you to join the Faculty’s LinkedIn trainee subgroup; it is a great forum for you to discuss all kinds of issues relating to your training. Some of my colleagues on the Trainees’ Subcommittee are members of the LinkedIn subgroup. We will post topics for discussion and news.
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Pharmaceutical-Medicine-Trainees-Group-4006693/about