It is a frustrating time for hospital pharmacists. This key sector of the profession is buoyant in terms of the type and quality of service that it provides, but relatively low remuneration levels and a general shortage of pharmacists wanting salaried employment means that there is a recruitment crisis. This in turn means that many vacancies stay vacant, and those who are in post have to work harder than they perhaps should in order to maintain services, which can have an adverse effect on quality of life.
This is the backdrop against which the chairman of the Society's Hospital Pharmacists Group (Dr Norman Lannigan) delivered what was a stimulating "state of the nation" address in London last week (for "nation" read "hospital pharmacy").
Dr Lannigan's pride in what hospital pharmacists were achieving could not have been more clearly stated (see p732). But he showed equal clarity in describing the problems that hospital pharmacists were facing.
He put forward a number of solutions to those problems, among which was the registration of pharmacy technicians, and increasing the output of schools of pharmacies so as to aid recruitment.
Such proposals are not without controversy. There are those who oppose the registration of technicians, particularly if the Society is the body that would be required to undertake it. But there is no doubt that there is a strong tide running in favour of registration and it may prove difficult to resist, at least so far as hospital pharmacy is concerned. In the hospital service, technicians are performing functions previously the preserve of pharmacists. Schemes are now well established in some centres, for example, for the work of technicians in the assembly of dispensed medicines to be checked by other technicians. Far from feeling threatened by such developments, hospital pharmacists seem to revel in them. They see them as freeing more time for patient contact and the practice of clinical pharmacy, which brings great professional fulfilment.
So far as increasing the output of schools of pharmacy is concerned, this would only help solve recruitment problems if terms and conditions of employment were improved in the hospital sphere. Ironically, a large surplus of pharmacists could have an adverse effect on salaries and pharmacists would still be reluctant to take up established posts. A modern phenomenon is the large number of pharmacists who work as locums, and this type of employment could mop up any excess pharmacists who wished to practise.
All this means that Dr Lannigan was on safer ground when he called for an improved salary structure for hospital pharmacists. A settlement is due and it needs to be a good one.
What is also needed is a review of the grading structure for hospital pharmacists. Dr Lannigan pointed out that there was now a reluctance among pharmacists to take up top posts, because the extra responsibility was not adequately rewarded in terms of extra remuneration. Hospital pharmacy, like any other area of activity, needs its leaders, and suitable pharmacists must be encouraged to take on such a role.
Dr Lannigan made his comments at a dinner arranged by our sister journal Hospital Pharmacist in association with Faulding Pharmaceuticals. It is to be hoped that the Faulding dinner will become a regular event in the hospital pharmacy calendar.