From Mr G. Diamond, MPharmS
SIR,—I was intrigued by the news article concerning the Hospital Pharmacists Group's support for technician registration (PJ, November 6, p732). What exactly does this proposal mean in terms of its impact on the profession of pharmacy?
Is it an expedient route to solving the recruitment problem in hospital pharmacists, thereby circumventing having properly qualified pharmacists replaced by a less qualified, cheaper workforce. I am afraid that is the real deal already.
Pharmacy is a broad profession in terms of its areas of practice and expertise and we should see ourselves as pharmacists first and foremost. However, it does not help the profession in its broadest sense to have a minority of hospital pharmacists pontificating to the majority of the profession. That is the tail wagging the dog on this issue.
Also, the claims of workforce shortage will be resolved without the proposed over-production of pharmacists, as it is debatable whether this is a real issue indeed. It will be seen in the long term to have been a short term phenomenon.
So, "what hospital pharmacy does today the wider profession does tomorrow". Well perhaps they do in hospitals, but there are many community pharmacists who have been innovators in their own right without hospital pharmacists' input or inspiration.
Pharmacists are flexible professionals, harnessing technical, clinical, managerial and social care rules in delivering seamless pharmaceutical care in all stratas of health provision. I do not believe patient centred pharmaceutical care can be best served by allowing or prioritising technician registration. It is the role of the society to register pharmacists not technicians.
If technicians want to be registered then let them go to a school of pharmacy and achieve registration through the convential route.
Gerry Diamond
Manchester