From Mr I. D. Maidment, MRPharmS
SIR,—I read with interest John Ferguson's article on the potential registration of technicians (PJ, September 11, p 391). I have to say that the general tone of the article was very condescending, and if I were a pharmacy technician, I would have been very insulted by it. The article was very backward looking and did not look forward to any future roles that pharmacy staff may develop. Mr Ferguson's argument also did not give any convincing reasons for not registering technicians.
The role of pharmacy can be defined in one sentence: to ensure the safe, effective and efficient use of medicines. Sadly, we are a long way from reaching this goal; stories of inappropriate prescribing are legendary. More important is the issue of concordance. Most patients do not take medicines as directed. Pharmacy technicians can have a prime role in ensuring the effective use of medicines and improving concordance. Surely, this is of benefit to the Society, and much more importantly the public.
In both community and hospital pharmacy, I have worked with some excellent pharmacy technicians. Within community pharmacies that rely on locums, it is common for the pharmacy technician to run the shop, for which the technician will often receive less than a third of the pharmacist's wage. In hospital pharmacy, technicians of all grades have a vital role in ensuring the smooth operation of the department. Hospital technicians have also proved excellent managers.
Technicians often feel frustrated by the lack of opportunity to develop roles, and the large differential in salaries. Technicians should be recognised as fellow professionals ensuring the safe, effective and efficient use of medicines. Registration will assist this recognition and ensure that the most able pharmacy technicians are able fully to develop their role.
Mr Ferguson's article implied that there is almost something wrong with hospital dispensaries being virtually pharmacist-free and technicians developing a clinical role. The idea behind registration is so that technicians can develop in parallel to pharmacists. There will be some roles more suited to technicians, and some more suited to pharmacists.
There is much that is needed to be done to ensure that medicines are used appropriately. If pharmacists feel threatened by technicians developing their role, surely something is very wrong.
Ian Maidment
Clinical Pharmacist, Hellesdon Hospital, Norwich