From Mr J. D. Khan, MRPharmS
SIR,—I find Dr Dewdney's article entitled "The pharmacy workforce: what we know and what we don't know" (PJ, August 21, p271), a pitiful defence of the past ineptness of the Society's Council, which failed to fully address the workforce crisis that is facing us now.
I find it astounding that when a wrong decision needs justification there is recourse to an outdated Society charter. The supply function should have addressed the number of "active" members on the register not the total number registered, since, by looking at the total number, no allowance is made for pharmacists who are working part-time, who are retired, who are young mothers or who are in purely managerial positions.
For example, the Society's new Workforce Committee would be wise to commission research into aspirations of preregistration students and "newly" qualified pharmacists as (i) some of the younger pharmacists are leaving for more lucrative careers but will still show as being on the register, (ii) young female pharmacists who are about to start a family may only be working part-time, (iii) the likelihood of staying on in the profession is remote where morale is low and (iv) a lot of proprietors are retiring early and selling to the multiples and either not working or working part-time. Hence, when quoting the "supply" side, allowances for these factors must be made.
On the demand side, the Workforce Committee should look at the types of employment on offer to potential pharmacists as these are more diverse now than they were a decade ago. There are now primary care group pharmacists, general practitioner practice pharmacists, various consultant pharmacists offering specialised services such as anticoagulant clinics, aside from the conventional employees. Account should also be taken of longer opening hours of supermarkets and whether career structures offered by employers are enough to retain pharmacists. All these factors cannot be taken into account by simply talking to the National Pharmaceutical Association and the major multiples. The other issues set out by Dr Dewdney are also important and need to be considered. The research commissioned to date has been superficial and I do not believe has fully addressed the pertinent issues.
It is, however, refreshing to know that the Society has now finally acknowledged that there are "moderate to severe difficulties in recruiting and retaining pharmacists", albeit a good two years after correspondence in the PJ indicated that there was a workforce problem. This is a "mindset" change from the mundane, repetitive responses issued by Mr John Ferguson when he was Secretary and Registrar and Mr Ian Caldwell at this year's British Pharmaceutical Conference (PJ, September 25, p491).
In summary, I feel that Dr Dewdney fails to realise that the workforce issue is a multifactoral issue and is not as simple as depicted in his article and no acknowledgment is made of this fact.
J. D. Khan
Rochdale, Lancashire