From Mrs A. Morant, MRPharmS
SIR,—As a pharmacist who has been working as a locum for many years I
was disappointed, but not surprised, to read the letter from Mrs O’Neill
(PJ, September 23, p445). I
recognise that as well as good locums there are also a number of bad apples.
The fact that unprofessional attitudes are accepted or even tolerated by owners
or managers was brought home to me when I was asked to ensure that I brought
my certificate as the inspector was due. (Transporting a certificate is rarely
a problem if the glass is replaced with Perspex.)
In reality, an owner only knows how an untried locum has performed by receiving
reports from the staff. Similarly, a good agency would like feedback.
Thus, to a certain extent, the solution is in the hands of the staff. They should
say how good or bad a locum has been. After all, no owner or manager wishes
to jeopardise the business they have spent years building up.
I am surprised that the old-fashioned tool of the grapevine is not used more
often. After all, references are a valuable tool in selecting the right person
for the job. This is a two-way traffic in that while prospective employers are
able to learn who are the good locums, locums can find out which shops have
long-term staff (always a good sign), etc. We have all heard horror stories
of locums and owners who cancel at the last moment. It should be noted that
a wise owner, when asked to recommend a locum, would only do so if they have
confidence in both parties as they would not wish to jeopardise good, long-term
relationships.
Even though I carry a mobile telephone with me, I do sometimes use my employer’s
telephone with permission. Equally well, I would be surprised if Mrs O’Neill
does not. The issue here is whether it impedes business because, after all,
the cost of an occasional local call is very small these days and it is better
for everyone that a booking can be arranged or confirmed (or otherwise) without
delay. Obviously, it should never be used for idle chat.
The rates of pay for locums in community pharmacy is dictated not by National
Health Service scales of remuneration but by the laws of supply and demand.
Owners who wish to obtain the services of the locum of their choice book well
in advance for holidays and mutually agree rates of pay, hours and expenses.
The situation is somewhat different for emergency cover. However, a good locum
wishing to convert a one-day job into the opportunity for repeat bookings is
hardly likely to hold the employer over a barrel.
In this vein it should be appreciated that most owners and managers have their
preferred shortlist of locums. It is only when this has been exhausted that
they call upon the services of an agency. Under these circumstances, it is not
surprising that the choice is often limited as many locums will have been booked
weeks or months in advance by direct personal arrangement.
Annette Morant
Edgware,
Middlesex